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

Anyway, here's some info.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/pregnant-woman-shot-alabama-manslaughter-jones-jemison

Jemison said she then fired a single shot from her gun toward the ground that was intended to be a “warning shot” because “there was too much going on and just too many bodies.”

“My shot wasn’t to hurt anybody,” Jemison said. “It was just to get everybody to leave.”

Jemison said that after she fired the shot, everybody left in their respective cars. She said she only found out that she had struck Jones and killed her unborn baby when a detective showed up at her house after the shooting.

It does seem a bit pointless prosecuting Marshae Jones. After all, she was shot and she lost her baby. Hasn't she suffered enough?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Maddog wrote:Let's say a 5 month  pregnant woman enters the UFC ring. After repeated  blows to the stomach, she loses the child.  

Who's at fault?

Good question. If you start a fight should you not expect the other person to defend themselves? In a country where people can carry guns, one should be able to predict that it might not end well.

Correct. What the courts have done is charged the person who initiated the crime that led to the death of the unborn child.

It the person who was the victim and defended themselves.

This is similar to shooting a pregnant woman breaking into your home. The shooter was not the person who initiated a criminal act.

Maddog wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Good question. If you start a fight should you not expect the other person to defend themselves? In a country where people can carry guns, one should be able to predict that it might not end well.

Correct. What the courts have done is charged the person who initiated the crime that led to the death of the unborn child.  

It the person who was the victim and defended themselves.

This is similar to shooting a pregnant woman breaking into your home. The shooter was not the person who initiated a criminal act.  

What?

I like you as a poster but your defense of gun use, is about your weakest and poorest arguments.

It was an altercation and only, i repeat only because you have such absurd laws around guns and self defense. Was she able to get off. In the UK, that woman would have been jailed for using a firearmn and attempted murder. Which a gun has the capabilities to kill someone. Its an uneven fight, fists against a gun.

What was even more poor here, was your excuse for the shooter. Going off a pregnant woman in a UFC right. That by simple competeing she would be at fault to you for the loss of a child. Hence you cannot even grasp the fallacy of your methodology. Which would place the fault of a dead boxer, on the boxer who died for simple competing. Which would place the death of any children in a car accident on the parents, for simple being behind the wheel when the accident happened. Its a really poor anology, that looks to steer the fault away from the real guilty party. The person that fired the gun. Punching someone does not warrant shooting someone in the abdomen. Women are simple incapable of killing people with a punch, in the vast majority of cases. Its this dumb law around a view of a fear to a persons life. When there is no indication thaere was any threat to life to the one that used the gun. That allows for many innocent people to die in the US. They are simple still maintaining a daft precedent as lf iiving in the wild west

buzzfeednews wrote:According to Jemison, she, Jones, and the baby’s father worked together at a warehouse in Royal Oaks at the time of the shooting. She said that Jones would often get suspicious when the baby’s father — who was a supervisor — would talk to new female employees in the warehouse.

Jemison, who was a temp at the warehouse, said that she talked to the man only in the capacity of her work and that Jones had never confronted her directly about it.

But, Jemison said, on the day of the shooting she and three of her friends went to the Dollar General store during their lunch break when she saw Jones with four of her friends approaching her outside the store.

An altercation broke out, and Jemison claimed that Jones grabbed her hair.

Jemison said she then fired a single shot from her gun toward the ground that was intended to be a “warning shot” because “there was too much going on and just too many bodies.”

“My shot wasn’t to hurt anybody,” Jemison said. “It was just to get everybody to leave.”

Jemison said that after she fired the shot, everybody left in their respective cars. She said she only found out that she had struck Jones and killed her unborn baby when a detective showed up at her house after the shooting.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/pregnant-woman-shot-alabama-manslaughter-jones-jemison

Well I never knew you could kill somebody by grabbing their hair and that this somehow warrants shooting someone?  A pregnant woman, less agile and thus at a disadvantage in a scuffle due to being 5 months pregnant and she was let off for shooting her.?

Okay she claims she fired a warning shot and it hit her? People fire warning shots into the air, not the ground, as bullets can ricochet when fired into the ground from such close range. If it had of hit the fllor, it could have easily wounded any of the people there, through ricocheting

So even using her excuse, she clearly is irresponible owning a gun, if her claim is true. She is also clearly a lousy shot, if we are too believe her claim that she looked to fire into the ground. This proves to me further why there should be stricter gun laws in the US

Its why I dont buy her story, as it makes little sense. Like I say you fire warning shots into the air. I mean how also could she miss the ground in front of her and hit the person at such close range.?? It says to me, how dangereous it is to allow untrained and incompetant people to hadle guns. Or she is basically lying, in order to get off using deadly force. Which I believe the later is the case and she deliberately shot her. In the UK, she would have been done for attempted murder  and convicted

Never seeen something so ridiculous that the state law backing the shooter here. .To then  blame the pregnant mother and possible charge her. Shows how dangereous it is when religious idiocy controls the laws of a state.

phildidge wrote:

buzzfeednews wrote:According to Jemison, she, Jones, and the baby’s father worked together at a warehouse in Royal Oaks at the time of the shooting. She said that Jones would often get suspicious when the baby’s father — who was a supervisor — would talk to new female employees in the warehouse.

Jemison, who was a temp at the warehouse, said that she talked to the man only in the capacity of her work and that Jones had never confronted her directly about it.

But, Jemison said, on the day of the shooting she and three of her friends went to the Dollar General store during their lunch break when she saw Jones with four of her friends approaching her outside the store.

An altercation broke out, and Jemison claimed that Jones grabbed her hair.

Jemison said she then fired a single shot from her gun toward the ground that was intended to be a “warning shot” because “there was too much going on and just too many bodies.”

“My shot wasn’t to hurt anybody,” Jemison said. “It was just to get everybody to leave.”

Jemison said that after she fired the shot, everybody left in their respective cars. She said she only found out that she had struck Jones and killed her unborn baby when a detective showed up at her house after the shooting.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/pregnant-woman-shot-alabama-manslaughter-jones-jemison

Well I never knew you could kill somebody by grabbing their hair and that this somehow warrants shooting someone?  A pregnant woman, less agile and thus at a disadvantage in a scuffle due to being 5 months pregnant and she was let off for shooting her.?

Okay she claims she fired a warning shot and it hit her? People fire warning shots into the air, not the ground, as bullets can ricochet when fired into the ground from such close range. If it had of hit the fllor, it could have easily wounded any of the people there, through ricocheting

So even using her excuse, she clearly is irresponible owning a gun, if her claim is true. She is also clearly a lousy shot, if we are too believe her claim that she looked to fire into the ground. This proves to me further why there should be stricter gun laws in the US

Its why I dont buy her story, as it makes little sense. Like I say you fire warning shots into the air. I mean how also could she miss the ground in front of her and hit the person at such close range.?? It says to me, how dangereous it is to allow untrained and incompetant people to hadle guns. Or she is basically lying, in order to get off using deadly force. Which I believe the later is the case and she deliberately shot her. In the UK, she would have been done for attempted murder  and convicted

Never seeen something so ridiculous that the state law backing the shooter here. .To then  blame the pregnant mother and possible charge her. Shows how dangereous it is when religious idiocy controls the laws of a state.

You never, never, never fire a warning shot in the air. A bullet falling to earth can be fatal.

If you start a fight, and the end result is the death of another being, you may be charged. It's really that simple.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Correct. What the courts have done is charged the person who initiated the crime that led to the death of the unborn child.  

It the person who was the victim and defended themselves.

This is similar to shooting a pregnant woman breaking into your home. The shooter was not the person who initiated a criminal act.  

What?

I like you as a poster but your defense of gun use, is about your weakest and poorest arguments.

It was an altercation and only, i repeat only because you have such absurd laws around guns and self defense. Was she able to get off. In the UK, that woman would have been jailed for using a firearmn and attempted murder. Which a gun has the capabilities to kill someone. Its an uneven fight, fists against a gun.

What was even more poor here, was your excuse for the shooter. Going off a pregnant woman in a UFC right. That by simple competeing she would be at fault to you for the loss of a child. Hence you cannot even grasp the fallacy of your methodology. Which would place the fault of a dead boxer, on the boxer who died for simple competing. Which would place the death of any children in a car accident on the parents, for simple being behind the wheel when the accident happened. Its a really poor anology, that looks to steer the fault away from the real guilty party. The person that fired the gun. Punching someone does not warrant shooting someone in the abdomen. Women are simple incapable of killing people with a punch, in the vast majority of cases. Its this dumb law around a view of a fear to a persons life. When there is no indication thaere was any threat to life to the one that used the gun. That allows for many innocent people to die in the US. They are simple still maintaining a daft precedent as lf iiving in the wild west

I didn't write the self defense laws and I don't give a fuck if you like me.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Well I never knew you could kill somebody by grabbing their hair and that this somehow warrants shooting someone?  A pregnant woman, less agile and thus at a disadvantage in a scuffle due to being 5 months pregnant and she was let off for shooting her.?

Okay she claims she fired a warning shot and it hit her? People fire warning shots into the air, not the ground, as bullets can ricochet when fired into the ground from such close range. If it had of hit the fllor, it could have easily wounded any of the people there, through ricocheting

So even using her excuse, she clearly is irresponible owning a gun, if her claim is true. She is also clearly a lousy shot, if we are too believe her claim that she looked to fire into the ground. This proves to me further why there should be stricter gun laws in the US

Its why I dont buy her story, as it makes little sense. Like I say you fire warning shots into the air. I mean how also could she miss the ground in front of her and hit the person at such close range.?? It says to me, how dangereous it is to allow untrained and incompetant people to hadle guns. Or she is basically lying, in order to get off using deadly force. Which I believe the later is the case and she deliberately shot her. In the UK, she would have been done for attempted murder  and convicted

Never seeen something so ridiculous that the state law backing the shooter here. .To then  blame the pregnant mother and possible charge her. Shows how dangereous it is when religious idiocy controls the laws of a state.

You never, never, never fire a warning shot in the air.  A bullet falling to earth can be fatal.  

If you start a fight, and the end result is the death of another being, you may be charged.  It's really that simple.  

1) Really? I think not as it will have lost much of its velocity

2) Pulling someoens hair and then being shot and killed, is murder, by the person with the gun. Its plain and simple.

This is what is fucked up with the brainwashing of yanks around guns. They simple are clueless around the danger of them. Fights happened in the UK all the time and its very rare someone will die due to a punch up. The fact you think this warrnts shooting someone, as a view of self defense is fucked up.

I mean even after me presenting this, you still back the woman that shot someone with a gun, because she had her hair messed up

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:


What?

I like you as a poster but your defense of gun use, is about your weakest and poorest arguments.

It was an altercation and only, i repeat only because you have such absurd laws around guns and self defense. Was she able to get off. In the UK, that woman would have been jailed for using a firearmn and attempted murder. Which a gun has the capabilities to kill someone. Its an uneven fight, fists against a gun.

What was even more poor here, was your excuse for the shooter. Going off a pregnant woman in a UFC right. That by simple competeing she would be at fault to you for the loss of a child. Hence you cannot even grasp the fallacy of your methodology. Which would place the fault of a dead boxer, on the boxer who died for simple competing. Which would place the death of any children in a car accident on the parents, for simple being behind the wheel when the accident happened. Its a really poor anology, that looks to steer the fault away from the real guilty party. The person that fired the gun. Punching someone does not warrant shooting someone in the abdomen. Women are simple incapable of killing people with a punch, in the vast majority of cases. Its this dumb law around a view of a fear to a persons life. When there is no indication thaere was any threat to life to the one that used the gun. That allows for many innocent people to die in the US. They are simple still maintaining a daft precedent as lf iiving in the wild west

I didn't write the self defense laws and I don't give a fuck if you like me.  

lol what a baby, would you like a dummy to suck on?

Get a grip you baby

How about using your brain and see what is clearly wrong with this case and how it was also wrong for this person to shoot the other simple being in an altercatiion. Its why I have often explained to you the dangers around people carrying guns. And simple argumen ts can lead to people being controlled by their emotions and shooting people. People again who have no respect for the potential life threatening use of guns. It shows how said laws is allowing countless irresponsible people to carry guns on them. Itsw why you have such high gun deaths. Now please continue to act like a baby. I have nothing personally against you, but if you cannot take criticism and ridicule for your poor arguments. Then that is your problem

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I didn't write the self defense laws and I don't give a fuck if you like me.  

lol what a baby, would you like a dummy to suck on?

Get a grip you baby

How about using your brain and see what is clearly wrong with this case and how it was also wrong for this person to shoot the other simple being in an altercatiion. Its why I have often explained to you the dangers around people carrying guns. And simple argumen ts can lead to people being controlled by their emotions and shooting people. People again who have no respect for the potential life threatening use of guns. It shows how said laws is allowing countless irresponsible people to carry guns on them. Itsw why you have such high gun deaths. Now please continue to act like a baby. I have nothing personally against you, but if you cannot take criticism and ridicule for your poor arguments. Then that is your problem

Again, I don't care how you feel about me.

Why should I?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You never, never, never fire a warning shot in the air.  A bullet falling to earth can be fatal.  

If you start a fight, and the end result is the death of another being, you may be charged.  It's really that simple.  

1) Really? I think not as it will have lost much of its velocity

2) Pulling someoens hair and then being shot and killed, is murder, by the person with the gun. Its plain and simple.

This is what is fucked up with the brainwashing of yanks around guns. They simple are clueless around the danger of them. Fights happened in the UK all the time and its very rare someone will die due to a punch up. The fact you think this warrnts shooting someone, as a view of self defense is fucked up.

I mean even after me presenting this, you still back the woman that shot someone with a gun, because she had her hair messed up

Well you're wrong. Falling bullets are lethal.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

lol what a baby, would you like a dummy to suck on?

Get a grip you baby

How about using your brain and see what is clearly wrong with this case and how it was also wrong for this person to shoot the other simple being in an altercatiion. Its why I have often explained to you the dangers around people carrying guns. And simple argumen ts can lead to people being controlled by their emotions and shooting people. People again who have no respect for the potential life threatening use of guns. It shows how said laws is allowing countless irresponsible people to carry guns on them. Itsw why you have such high gun deaths. Now please continue to act like a baby. I have nothing personally against you, but if you cannot take criticism and ridicule for your poor arguments. Then that is your problem

Again, I don't care how you feel about me.  

Why should I?

As people generally have empathy and care for people they come to know..Whether that be online or in person

Why would ou not try and get along with people?

No worries, if you do not, I will however have empathy and care for you. I may be verbally abusive at times, but I still care for people

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

1) Really? I think not as it will have lost much of its velocity

2) Pulling someoens hair and then being shot and killed, is murder, by the person with the gun. Its plain and simple.

This is what is fucked up with the brainwashing of yanks around guns. They simple are clueless around the danger of them. Fights happened in the UK all the time and its very rare someone will die due to a punch up. The fact you think this warrnts shooting someone, as a view of self defense is fucked up.

I mean even after me presenting this, you still back the woman that shot someone with a gun, because she had her hair messed up

Well you're wrong. Falling bullets are lethal.  

What is going to be more potentially a danger with firing a warning shot, based on the percentage of risk.?? One into the ground at close range, with mutiple people around. That can Ricochet into one of them. Or one fired into the air with the unlikeliest chance of falling and then hitting someone?

If you need a calaculator to work at the maths based on risk, let me know?

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It was in hypothetical form, so the setting is beside the point.

That was whataboutism, no matter how poorly you defend that

You have a long way to go in the thinking department.  I gave you the concept of 'whataboutism' and you have never understood it.

phil wrote:Its also a poor leading view generally held by dinosaur men, that generally hold women accountable for miscarriages

What dinosaur men?  In this case it was two women fighting.  Another woman was responsible.  You lose your grasp of thought so easily.  Or, did you not even read the OP?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Well you're wrong. Falling bullets are lethal.  

What is going to be more potentially a danger with firing a warning shot, based on the percentage of risk.?? One into the ground at close range, with mutiple people around. That can Ricochet into one of them. Or one fired into the air with the unlikeliest chance of falling and then hitting someone?

If you need a calaculator to work at the maths based on risk, let me know?

If it's dirt, the dirt is safer. If it's concrete, the air is likely safer.

Glad I could educate you.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Again, I don't care how you feel about me.  

Why should I?

As people generally have empathy and care for people they come to know..Whether that be online or in person

Why would ou not try and get along with people?

No worries, if you do not, I will however have empathy and care for you. I may be verbally abusive at times, but I still care for people

Why are you put in timeout so much on this forum?

Why were you booted from dogs in about a week?

Too much empathy?

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:


That was whataboutism, no matter how poorly you defend that

You have a long way to go in the thinking department.  I gave you the concept of 'whataboutism' and you have never understood it.

phil wrote:Its also a poor leading view generally held by dinosaur men, that generally hold women accountable for miscarriages

What dinosaur men?  In this case it was two women fighting.  Another woman was responsible.  You lose your grasp of thought so easily.  Or, did you not even read the OP?

I have nothing to learn from you, because you fail to even understand what whataboutism is.

You are simple rambling

One woman pulled the other womans hair. Shje was then shot by the other person

You think messing up someones hair warrants being shot?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:


What is going to be more potentially a danger with firing a warning shot, based on the percentage of risk.?? One into the ground at close range, with mutiple people around. That can Ricochet into one of them. Or one fired into the air with the unlikeliest chance of falling and then hitting someone?

If you need a calaculator to work at the maths based on risk, let me know?

If it's dirt, the dirt is safer. If it's concrete, the air is likely safer.  

Glad I could educate you.  

Goal post moving alert

Where is the dirt when on the poavement outside a store?

Would you like a couple more straws?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

As people generally have empathy and care for people they come to know..Whether that be online or in person

Why would ou not try and get along with people?

No worries, if you do not, I will however have empathy and care for you. I may be verbally abusive at times, but I still care for people

Why are you put in timeout so much on this forum?

Why were you booted from dogs in about a week?

Too much empathy?

I was on dogs for years actually and all i did was tell the owner that I was reporting his site for antisemitism and he banned me. Why would he do that unless, what I said was true about the rampant antisemitism.? That was him in self defense mode. Unless you thin kits okay for people to spout antisemitic hate. He shit himself when i said that and I did report him. As I am part of antsemtism UK. You see unlike, you am part of sometghing that tackles hate. He acted like google are doing now with Veritas. He censured me, because I spoke out against antisemitism. Also that site daily bans mutiple people on a whim. Its the most trigger happy moderation site I have ever seen. i did not even want him to moderate people but condemn antiusemitic behaviour, which he defended people who held antisemic views. Stu is alright as a person,. but then shat hiumself, because he thought he would be in trouble. If you ban people for wanting to right wrongs and ban them, what does that say about stu?

Yes, sometimes my passion gets away from me, but I aplogise and hold nothing against people. The left of late are in defense mode about antisemitism within labour and want to deny this. I am combating this and really did not think much of the site, its full of extremist idiots to be honest. I simple came on rarely from time to time. Unlike you, though I move on past grudges. I simple acted, as he would not act against such rampant antisemitism and tried to deny it. Just like the Labour party is trying to do and is now under investigation. I could have pulled his site up with forumotion, but never did.

If all you can do is pull this up, when you are clearly out of poor arguments here, i will take that as a compliment. To the fact you have nothing of substance to offer to the debate

I don't think Stooo is afraid of anything you say or do Didge.

There would be no point reporting his site to Forumotion - because it's not a Forumotion site.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think Stooo is afraid of anything you say or do Didge.

There would be no point reporting his site to Forumotion - because it's  not a Forumotion site.

Well clearly he was. because he wrongly thought I was trying to shut the site down. Never tried to even do so and stated clearly that it was about educating people on antisemitism. Would you like me to post the link again. As he became paranoid over me reporting the antisemitism. That is being very afraid, as why then ban a person for combating antisemitism, when that person is clearly in ignorance of what that actually is? He stated clearly to banning me for trying to have the site shut down, when I never once claimed to doing so.

He is an ardent labour supporter and fails to see or understand antisemitism. My only goal was for him to speak out against this and he in fact defended it by being antisemitic himself

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think Stooo is afraid of anything you say or do Didge.

There would be no point reporting his site to Forumotion - because it's  not a Forumotion site.

Well clearly he was. because he wrongly thought I was trying to shut the site down. Never tried to even do so and stated clearly that it was about educating people on antisemitism. Would you like me to post the link again. As he became paranoid over me reporting the antisemitism. That is being very afraid, as why then ban a person for combating antisemitism, when that person is clearly in ignorance of what that actually is? He stated clearly to banning me for trying to have the site shut down, when I never once claimed to doing so.

He is an ardent labour supporter and fails to see or understand antisemitism. My only goal was for him to speak out against this and he in fact defended it by being antisemitic himself

I think he just got bored with your mad posts.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Well clearly he was. because he wrongly thought I was trying to shut the site down. Never tried to even do so and stated clearly that it was about educating people on antisemitism. Would you like me to post the link again. As he became paranoid over me reporting the antisemitism. That is being very afraid, as why then ban a person for combating antisemitism, when that person is clearly in ignorance of what that actually is? He stated clearly to banning me for trying to have the site shut down, when I never once claimed to doing so.

He is an ardent labour supporter and fails to see or understand antisemitism. My only goal was for him to speak out against this and he in fact defended it by being antisemitic himself

I think he just got bored with your mad posts.

How is combating antisemitism now seen as mad? Is it possible based again on him being a labopur supporter and Coryn supporter, he was being blind to antisemitism. I had never even been moderated on the site in the whole time of a year and half there. Only on that day, when I questioned him on posters antisemitim. He made excuses and then placed me opn ban for a number of hours. Its simple a control and power think for him. To censur people and gain control. He was clear why he banned me. He claimed i was trying to shut the site down. That was extreme paranoia on his part as antiosemitism UK does not have the power to close websites down. He clearly did not want attention centered on him and only people deep down. Knowing there is antisemitism, would try to cover that up.

The reality is Stu is like many Corbynite apologists. They are blind to antisemitism. He knew and shit himself and banned me, simple for saying I had reported the antisemitism on his site. I mean if there was none, why would he ban me if he believed there was none? That is the actions of a guilty person and he knew it.

He always bans people who report his site - even if it's to Forumotion.

Raggamuffin wrote:He always bans people who report his site - even if it's to Forumotion.

So he is paranoid then, being as like I say, antisemitism uk would never be able to ban his site and he banned me for an unfounded claim, ie an excuse. Claiming I was trying to get the site shutdown. As I say, only guilty people act that way

Whatever.

phildidge wrote:

buzzfeednews wrote:According to Jemison, she, Jones, and the baby’s father worked together at a warehouse in Royal Oaks at the time of the shooting. She said that Jones would often get suspicious when the baby’s father — who was a supervisor — would talk to new female employees in the warehouse.

Jemison, who was a temp at the warehouse, said that she talked to the man only in the capacity of her work and that Jones had never confronted her directly about it.

But, Jemison said, on the day of the shooting she and three of her friends went to the Dollar General store during their lunch break when she saw Jones with four of her friends approaching her outside the store.

An altercation broke out, and Jemison claimed that Jones grabbed her hair.

Jemison said she then fired a single shot from her gun toward the ground that was intended to be a “warning shot” because “there was too much going on and just too many bodies.”

“My shot wasn’t to hurt anybody,” Jemison said. “It was just to get everybody to leave.”

Jemison said that after she fired the shot, everybody left in their respective cars. She said she only found out that she had struck Jones and killed her unborn baby when a detective showed up at her house after the shooting.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/pregnant-woman-shot-alabama-manslaughter-jones-jemison

Well I never knew you could kill somebody by grabbing their hair and that this somehow warrants shooting someone?  A pregnant woman, less agile and thus at a disadvantage in a scuffle due to being 5 months pregnant and she was let off for shooting her.?

Okay she claims she fired a warning shot and it hit her? People fire warning shots into the air, not the ground, as bullets can ricochet when fired into the ground from such close range. If it had of hit the fllor, it could have easily wounded any of the people there, through ricocheting

So even using her excuse, she clearly is irresponible owning a gun, if her claim is true. She is also clearly a lousy shot, if we are too believe her claim that she looked to fire into the ground. This proves to me further why there should be stricter gun laws in the US

Its why I dont buy her story, as it makes little sense. Like I say you fire warning shots into the air. I mean how also could she miss the ground in front of her and hit the person at such close range.?? It says to me, how dangereous it is to allow untrained and incompetant people to hadle guns. Or she is basically lying, in order to get off using deadly force. Which I believe the later is the case and she deliberately shot her. In the UK, she would have been done for attempted murder  and convicted

Never seeen something so ridiculous that the state law backing the shooter here. .To then  blame the pregnant mother and possible charge her. Shows how dangereous it is when religious idiocy controls the laws of a state.

Anywa, to get the debate back on track. Who thinks its okay to shoot a woman for pulling their hair?

It depends on how hard they pulled it, and the fear of what they might do next.

Raggamuffin wrote:It depends on how hard they pulled it, and the fear of what they might do next.

How opften do people die from their hair being pulled rags?

How often have girls fought in this country pulling hair and died from such fights?

Are you seriously suggesting her life was in danger? Even she claims not to think it was and claim to fire her gun as a warning. Which is only born from a poor mentality of gun advocates in the US. Its why many people die from gun shots, due to the fact they are carrying them and over reacting. You dont nmeed to fire a gun, due to someone pulling your hair. There is no way her life was in immediate threat but the laws that allow carrying guns. Is ensuring so many incidents like this will occur, because many people simple are clearly not responsible enough to carry guns

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It depends on how hard they pulled it, and the fear of what they might do next.

How opften do people die from their hair being pulled rags?

How often have girls fought in this country pulling hair and died from such fights?

Are you seriously suggesting her life was in danger? Even she claims not to think it was and claim to fire her gun as a warning. Which is only born from a poor mentality of gun advocates in the US. Its why many people die from gun shots, due to the fact they are carrying them and over reacting. You dont nmeed to fire a gun, due to someone pulling your hair. There is no way her life was in immediate threat but the laws that allow carrying guns. Is ensuring so many incidents like this will occur, because many people simple are clearly not responsible enough to carry guns

She didn't have to think that her life was in danger though. Pulling someone's hair in an aggressive manner is assault, and you can defend yourself against assault. In America, they can defend themselves with guns.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

How opften do people die from their hair being pulled rags?

How often have girls fought in this country pulling hair and died from such fights?

Are you seriously suggesting her life was in danger? Even she claims not to think it was and claim to fire her gun as a warning. Which is only born from a poor mentality of gun advocates in the US. Its why many people die from gun shots, due to the fact they are carrying them and over reacting. You dont nmeed to fire a gun, due to someone pulling your hair. There is no way her life was in immediate threat but the laws that allow carrying guns. Is ensuring so many incidents like this will occur, because many people simple are clearly not responsible enough to carry guns

She didn't have to think that her life was in danger though. Pulling someone's hair in an aggressive manner is assault, and you can defend yourself against assault. In America, they can defend themselves with guns.

Shooting someone is only ever a valid option when your life is in immediate danger of their own life

How is pulling the hair of someone, being in immediate danger of their own life?

This is a woman 5 months pregnant pulling her hair and with friends, each here. To pull a gun here and fire was either inherantly irresponsible. Based on her claim to fire and warn. Even more so to fire into the ground, which could bounce off the ground and hit someone. Due to many people involved. Or she deliberately fired, based on her being trigger happy. Which is formed around the really poor gun laws in the US. Like I said, in the Uk and many western countries, the woman who fired the gun, would be tried for attemped murder

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She didn't have to think that her life was in danger though. Pulling someone's hair in an aggressive manner is assault, and you can defend yourself against assault. In America, they can defend themselves with guns.

Shooting someone is only ever a valid option when your life is in immediate danger of their own life

How is pulling the hair of someone, being in immediate danger of their own life?

This is a woman 5 months pregnant pulling her hair and with friends, each here. To pull a gun here and fire was either inherantly irresponsible. Based on her claim to fire and warn. Even more so to fire into the ground, which could bounce off the ground and hit someone. Due to many people involved. Or she deliberately fired, based on her being trigger happy. Which is formed around the really poor gun laws in the US. Like I said, in the Uk and many western countries, the woman who fired the gun, would be tried for attemped murder

You can use a plea of self defence if you are at risk of physical harm, your life doesn't have to be in danger.

In any case, Ms Jemison said that she shot at the ground, not at Ms Jones. They could probably tell what happened from the angle the bullet went into her stomach.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Shooting someone is only ever a valid option when your life is in immediate danger of their own life

How is pulling the hair of someone, being in immediate danger of their own life?

This is a woman 5 months pregnant pulling her hair and with friends, each here. To pull a gun here and fire was either inherantly irresponsible. Based on her claim to fire and warn. Even more so to fire into the ground, which could bounce off the ground and hit someone. Due to many people involved. Or she deliberately fired, based on her being trigger happy. Which is formed around the really poor gun laws in the US. Like I said, in the Uk and many western countries, the woman who fired the gun, would be tried for attemped murder

You can use a plea of self defence if you are at risk of physical harm, your life doesn't have to be in danger.

Shiow me the Uk law which allows you to shoot or stab someone when simple in an altercation, where their hair is being pulled?

Shooting someone has the potential to phsycailly main and kill someone

You do understand that and again it goes back to my point

She never claimed to be in fear of her life

Raggamuffin wrote:In any case, Ms Jemison said that she shot at the ground, not at Ms Jones. They could probably tell what happened from the angle the bullet went into her stomach.

Her hands were not hindered, as the other person had their hands on her hair

The pavement is a massive target not to miss, so how did she miss?

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You can use a plea of self defence if you are at risk of physical harm, your life doesn't have to be in danger.

Shiow me the Uk law which allows you to shoot or stab someone when simple in an altercation, where their hair is being pulled?

Shooting someone has the potential to phsycailly main and kill someone

You do understand that and again it goes back to my point

She never claimed to be in fear of her life

We're not talking about UK law. You wouldn't shoot someone for that because you wouldn't be allowed to carry a gun or a knife anyway.

In America, they can carry guns - do you not see the difference?

I know she didn't claim to be in fear of her life, so that's a red herring.

She said that she shot at the ground, and there appears to be no evidence to contradict that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Shiow me the Uk law which allows you to shoot or stab someone when simple in an altercation, where their hair is being pulled?

Shooting someone has the potential to phsycailly main and kill someone

You do understand that and again it goes back to my point

She never claimed to be in fear of her life

We're not talking about UK law. You wouldn't shoot someone for that because you wouldn't be allowed to carry a gun or a knife anyway.

In America, they can carry guns - do you not see the difference?

I know she didn't claim to be in fear of her life, so that's a red herring.

She said that she shot at the ground, and there appears to be no evidence to contradict that.

And why are people not allowed to carry guns or knives in this country Rags?

That might give you a clue to how fucked up the American system is?

If she was not in fear of her life, why fire the gun?

There is plenty of evidence to contradict that. SDhe never hit the ground but shot the woman

phildidge wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Well I never knew you could kill somebody by grabbing their hair and that this somehow warrants shooting someone?  A pregnant woman, less agile and thus at a disadvantage in a scuffle due to being 5 months pregnant and she was let off for shooting her.?

Okay she claims she fired a warning shot and it hit her? People fire warning shots into the air, not the ground, as bullets can ricochet when fired into the ground from such close range. If it had of hit the fllor, it could have easily wounded any of the people there, through ricocheting

So even using her excuse, she clearly is irresponible owning a gun, if her claim is true. She is also clearly a lousy shot, if we are too believe her claim that she looked to fire into the ground. This proves to me further why there should be stricter gun laws in the US

Its why I dont buy her story, as it makes little sense. Like I say you fire warning shots into the air. I mean how also could she miss the ground in front of her and hit the person at such close range.?? It says to me, how dangereous it is to allow untrained and incompetant people to hadle guns. Or she is basically lying, in order to get off using deadly force. Which I believe the later is the case and she deliberately shot her. In the UK, she would have been done for attempted murder  and convicted

Never seeen something so ridiculous that the state law backing the shooter here. .To then  blame the pregnant mother and possible charge her. Shows how dangereous it is when religious idiocy controls the laws of a state.

Anywa, to get the debate back on track. Who thinks its okay to shoot a woman for pulling their hair?

The Grand Jury and/or the DA.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think Stooo is afraid of anything you say or do Didge.

There would be no point reporting his site to Forumotion - because it's  not a Forumotion site.

Nope. You have to have a special kind of empathy to get kicked off of that site.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Anywa, to get the debate back on track. Who thinks its okay to shoot a woman for pulling their hair?

The Grand Jury and/or the DA.

And that makes it okay to you and no possibility of a miscarriage of justice of justice?

We are talking about a state that has held the woman shot in jail and is still not been released with a view to charge her, based on religiuous beliefs.

Maybe you think the behading of people for apostacy in Saudi is justfied by their courts also?

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

How opften do people die from their hair being pulled rags?

How often have girls fought in this country pulling hair and died from such fights?

Are you seriously suggesting her life was in danger? Even she claims not to think it was and claim to fire her gun as a warning. Which is only born from a poor mentality of gun advocates in the US. Its why many people die from gun shots, due to the fact they are carrying them and over reacting. You dont nmeed to fire a gun, due to someone pulling your hair. There is no way her life was in immediate threat but the laws that allow carrying guns. Is ensuring so many incidents like this will occur, because many people simple are clearly not responsible enough to carry guns

She didn't have to think that her life was in danger though. Pulling someone's hair in an aggressive manner is assault, and you can defend yourself against assault. In America, they can defend themselves with guns.

You don't have to wait until someone put's your life in danger.

What Didge doesn't want to understand is that attacking someone, and harming them puts the blame on the attacker. It's not up to the victim to try to determine exactly how much damage the attacker is actually going to do. Throw in some threatening language, and folks are allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The Grand Jury and/or the DA.

And that makes it okay to you and no possibility of a miscarriage of justice of justice?

We are talking about a state that has held the woman shot in jail and is still not been released with a view to charge her, based on religiuous beliefs.

Maybe you think the behading of people for apostacy in Saudi is justfied by their courts also?

There is always a possibility for a miscarriage of justice.

Maddog wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think Stooo is afraid of anything you say or do Didge.

There would be no point reporting his site to Forumotion - because it's  not a Forumotion site.

Nope. You have to have a special kind of empathy to get kicked off of that site.  

Why the owner lacked any empathy for the rising problem of antisemitism

He became immediately parnoied, because his site was reported for antisemiotism. Why ban a poster for that?

If the owner believed there was no antisemitism, why then bad the individual?

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

We're not talking about UK law. You wouldn't shoot someone for that because you wouldn't be allowed to carry a gun or a knife anyway.

In America, they can carry guns - do you not see the difference?

I know she didn't claim to be in fear of her life, so that's a red herring.

She said that she shot at the ground, and there appears to be no evidence to contradict that.

And why are people not allowed to carry guns or knives in this country Rags?

That might give you a clue to how fucked up the American system  is?

If she was not in fear of her life, why fire the gun?

There is plenty of evidence to contradict that. SDhe never hit the ground but shot the woman

I'm not saying I agree with the American system of carrying guns though.

What evidence is there to say that she directly shot Jones in the stomach?

Alabama's 2006 Stand Your Ground law:

A person still must have a justifiable reason for using physical force and can't be the original aggressor. But there is no longer a duty to retreat.

Physical force is not justified if the person is engaged in an unlawful activity or the person they are using the defensive force against is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duty.

So when is it justified?

A person is justified in using deadly physical force if they believe the other person is:

About to use unlawful deadly physical force.

A burglar about to use physical force.

Engaged in kidnapping, assault, robbery, or rape.

Unlawfully and forcefully entering a home or car, or attempting to remove a person against their will. (There are exceptions for people who used to live there and are under no injunctions or domestic protection orders.)

Breaking into a nuclear power plant.


https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2014/08/what_alabama_law_says_about_us.html

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Nope. You have to have a special kind of empathy to get kicked off of that site.  

Why the owner lacked any empathy for the rising problem of antisemitism

He became immediately parnoied, because his site was reported for antisemiotism. Why ban a poster for that?

If the owner believed there was no antisemitism, why then bad the individual?

I told you - he bans anyone who reports his site for any reason.

Maddog wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She didn't have to think that her life was in danger though. Pulling someone's hair in an aggressive manner is assault, and you can defend yourself against assault. In America, they can defend themselves with guns.

You don't have to wait until someone put's your life in danger.

What Didge doesn't want to understand is that attacking someone, and harming them puts the blame on the attacker. It's not up to the victim to try to determine exactly how much damage the attacker is actually going to do. Throw in some threatening language, and folks are allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves.  

 

So pulling someones hair made the other person pull the gun and shoot her in the stomach?

Really, explain that to me?

Even though she claims not to have been aiming for her? If she was not aiming for her, as she claims, dont you think that makes her at fault, being that she shot her?

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

And why are people not allowed to carry guns or knives in this country Rags?

That might give you a clue to how fucked up the American system  is?

If she was not in fear of her life, why fire the gun?

There is plenty of evidence to contradict that. SDhe never hit the ground but shot the woman

I'm not saying I agree with the American system of carrying guns though.

What evidence is there to say that she directly shot Jones in the stomach?

None.

She tried to use a warning shot, after brandishing the weapon didn't work.

The attacker had every opportunity to remove herself and her unborn child from her illegal conduct.

She chose to continue the assault.

If a person pulls a gun on you while you are attacking them, it's a good idea to stop your attack.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Why the owner lacked any empathy for the rising problem of antisemitism

He became immediately parnoied, because his site was reported for antisemiotism. Why ban a poster for that?

If the owner believed there was no antisemitism, why then bad the individual?

I told you - he bans anyone who reports his site for any reason.

That was not the reason he banned me

He claimed for attempting to shut the site down

I never attempted to do so

So you need to stop telling porkies

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You don't have to wait until someone put's your life in danger.

What Didge doesn't want to understand is that attacking someone, and harming them puts the blame on the attacker. It's not up to the victim to try to determine exactly how much damage the attacker is actually going to do. Throw in some threatening language, and folks are allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves.  

 

So pulling someones hair made the other person pull the gun and shoot her in the stomach?

Really, explain that to me?

Even though she claims not to have been aiming for her? If she was not aiming for her, as she claims, dont you think that makes her at fault, being that she shot her?

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2014/08/what_alabama_law_says_about_us.html

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

And why are people not allowed to carry guns or knives in this country Rags?

That might give you a clue to how fucked up the American system  is?

If she was not in fear of her life, why fire the gun?

There is plenty of evidence to contradict that. SDhe never hit the ground but shot the woman

I'm not saying I agree with the American system of carrying guns though.

What evidence is there to say that she directly shot Jones in the stomach?

That she was directly shot in the stomach

Its called medical evidence