Though [Marshae Jones, 27] didn’t fire the shots that killed her unborn baby girl, authorities say she initiated the dispute that led to the gunfire. Police initially charged 23-year-old Ebony Jemison with manslaughter, but the charge against Jemison was dismissed after the grand jury failed to indict her....
[Pleasant Grove police Lt. Danny Reid] said the fight stemmed over the unborn baby’s father. The investigation showed, he said, that it was Jones who initiated and pressed the fight, which ultimately caused Jemison to defend herself and unfortunately caused the death of the baby....
[Amanda Reyes, Executive Director of The Yellowhammer Fund, a member of the National Network of Abortion Funds which helps women access abortion services said,] “The state of Alabama has proven yet again that the moment a person becomes pregnant their sole responsibility is to produce a live, healthy baby and that it considers any action a pregnant person takes that might impede in that live birth to be a criminal act... Today, Marshae Jones is being charged with manslaughter for being pregnant and getting shot while engaging in an altercation with a person who had a gun. Tomorrow, it will be another black woman, maybe for having a drink while pregnant. And after that, another, for not obtaining adequate prenatal care.”
June 27, 2019
"Alabama woman loses unborn child after being shot, gets arrested; shooter goes free."
Alabama.com reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
65 comments:
Deplorables gonna Deplorable
Miss Reyes is a moron. She would have had no problem with the manslaughter charge had Jemison been indicted, right? I mean, Reyes could have clarified her position by saying she also thought the manslaughter charge against Jemison was inappropriate, but she didn't. I don't know any details of the case, but with grand jury's refusal to indict, I do have to assume that evidence is pretty strong that Jones did, in fact, initiate and drive the conflict, especially since she is being charged with the same offense. It should not matter if Jemison felt she had to defend herself- the charge is that Jones is the one that caused her unborn child's death.
The framing of this story on all the outraged Twitter posts over the last 2 days is laughably stupid.
My analogy was: if I go into a bank and yell "this is a robbery, everyone get down!" and a security guard tries to shoot me, misses, and accidentally kills a bystander I would likely be charged with murder for that person's death. That'd be true even if I was unarmed, had no other interaction with that victim, etc. Most people understand the logic of that charge.
In this case the fetus is considered an innocent bystander. The mother's (alleged) criminal actions resulted in the death of that bystander, so she's being charged for that. A grand jury decided the shooter in this case didn't commit a criminal act and the charging authorities apparently believe the shooting was a legitimate form of self defense against this woman's criminal acts/attack.
The facts are unusual (thank goodness!) but the logic seems pretty straightforward. I guess we're all supposed to lose our minds because there's an unborn baby involved, or a pregnant woman's being charged with a crime, or something.
The state of Alabama has proven yet again that the moment a person becomes pregnant their sole responsibility is to produce a live, healthy baby and that it considers any action a pregnant person takes that might impede in that live birth to be a criminal act...
Wow! When you no longer have to worry about food, and shelter, this is the kind of thinking you get.
I owe a certain duty of care to the strangers waiting in line at the bank. If I engage in criminal activities that result in their deaths, though directly caused by someone else's reasonable actions, I can be held criminally responsible for those deaths.
The woman from the Yellowhammer pro-abortion rights group appears to believe that a pregnant woman owes her fetus less of a duty of care than I owe strangers at a bank. That strikes me as ridiculous--is it another one of those seemingly magic moments whereby the instant the child is born it's a person and we owe it consideration and respect (for its rights, duty of care, etc) but up until that exact moment it doesn't have any moral or legal weight?
Wow! When you no longer have to worry about food, and shelter, this is the kind of thinking you get.
You talking about the prosecutors?
For pete's sake, there's extrapolation, and then there's extrapolation.
She would have had no problem with the manslaughter charge had Jemison been indicted, right?
Not sure about this particular person, but a lot of pro choicers do not seem to see any inconsistency between the fetus being human when the death is caused by a third party and the fetus being a mere clump of cells when the mother wants get rid of it.
That makes murdering 60+ million babies ok, says I.
That strikes me as ridiculous--is it another one of those seemingly magic moments whereby the instant the child is born it's a person and we owe it consideration and respect (for its rights, duty of care, etc) but up until that exact moment it doesn't have any moral or legal weight?
Actually, the point is how arbitrary the moral and legal weight is.
Your bank-robbing woman wasn't actually robbing a bank. Nor was she armed.
I'd have to search for the specifics but I vaguely remember an insurance case where a company sued the estate of a guy who killed himself on their property--he was acting recklessly and died, causing the company to incur costs, they got sued by the guy's employer's insurance (I think) trying to recoup on some policy they had against his death, and the company in turn sued for recovery against the guy's estate since he caused his own death (might have been subrogating on a larger claim).
Anyway if I attacked someone and they shot and killed me in self defense I bet they'd still be able to sue my estate for the expense of treating emotion harm/PTSD or something similar.
Evabody say the baby-daddy's semen exit speed was wicked fast, but by itself that wasn't enough to bring about a happy outcome...big picture.
You talking about the prosecutors?
Yes, I failed to indicate that it was a direct quote from Amanda Reyes. I left that as an exercise for the reader.
Pregnant woman slips on ice and loses her baby. Her fault for not wearing crampons?
Pregnant woman works as a bank guard and is shot by innocent bystander. Her fault for working as a bank guard?
What about a pregnant police officer?
Is anyone noting that this case is discussed in the Bible? Exodus 21. Compare verse 22 (about the fetus) with verses 23-25 (about the mother).
Yes, I failed to indicate that it was a direct quote from Amanda Reyes.
Don't worry. I knew who you were quoting.
Bad cases make bad law.
Henry said...Your bank-robbing woman wasn't actually robbing a bank. Nor was she armed.
That was part of my analogy in answer to "how could a person be charged with causing the death of someone else/her own fetus when she was the one who was shot?!"
I am not arguing the facts of this case--the state may be making the wrong charging decisions on both sides here. Assuming arguendo that the facts do support the charge--that the woman was acting in a criminal manner that caused the other party to defend themselves using a firearm, causing the death of the woman's unborn child--the logic behind the charge seems easy to follow, to me. If the state has any interest in the rights of the fetus/unborn child then treating it the same as any other innocent bystander makes sense.
The situation is only absurd if you assume the fetus has no rights the state must protect. To me that would, itself, be absurd--very few people deny the state has an interest in protecting animals (with laws preventing cruelty, etc), so to conclude that you'd have to say an unborn child has fewer rights than a pet.
...the charge against Jemison was dismissed after the grand jury failed to indict her....
The deplorable people of Alabama appear to have good common sense. Maybe that is why they are so despised by the elitists like Ms. Reyes.
If only she would have had the time to get an abortion before the fight, she wouldn't be in trouble with the law. Ironic?
Diversity, really? Diversitists jumped the Ass and cannot help but reveal their bigotry in the most inane ways and times.
So, was it an accident or Planned? The issue is elective abortion. The cases brought by the abortion industry, advocates, and activists, are straw clowns posing for the Wicked Solution.
That said, with great pleasure comes great responsibility.
Human life from conception. A person... human being, with a presumptive consciousness, from around the 5th week. #HateLovesAbortion
Henry said...Pregnant woman slips on ice and loses her baby. Her fault for not wearing crampons?
Oh ok, you're being silly. There are legal distinctions between accidents and intentionally criminal acts. There's a reasonableness standard, sure, but it's not some impossible distinction.
Take pregnancy out of it! If a woman carrying her newborn slips on ice and the baby dies she won't be charged with murder. If a woman intentionally kills her newborn by dropping it she would be charged with murder. If the same woman drops and kills her newborn while running from a store she just robbed she will also likely be charged for the baby's death.
If I'm driving safely and a car crashes into me, killing my passenger, I probably won't be charged for that person's death. If I'm fleeing from the police or committing some other criminal act and I accidentally crash my car, killing my passenger unintentionally, I will be charged for that death.
When you intentionally commit a crime you take on risk and can be held responsible for collateral damage you didn't intend to cause related to that crime. Again: not a crazy principle.
And if the child was born? Born-1 or Born or Born+1?
Reyes sounds like a juvenile delinquent who should not be advising people on matters of human rights and dignity. Who do abortionists deny that women have a conscience and the capacity for sound judgment?
#HoodlumDoodlum +1 well-explained
'The deplorable people of Alabama appear to have good common sense.'
Our unofficial motto is: 'Thank God for Mississippi', so we accept all compliments.
sounds very much like felony murder
If a woman carrying her newborn slips on ice and the baby dies she won't be charged with murder...
Rational and reasonable. Normal people take precautions, but life is chaotic. The abortionists believe that edge cases are useful to establish their ethics, but they are merely straw clown apologies that are only accepted by followers of their Chamber, Twilight faith, and Pro-Choice quasi-religion.
HoodlumDoodlum -- Was the woman who was shot charged with assault? Disturbing the peace? If the state has a case against her for something other than being shot while pregnant, why don't they bring that case.
n.n. brings up edge cases. Edge cases abound. Maybe both sides should avoid exploiting them.
This does seem like a weird edge case.
If she'd deliberately killed the fetus -- no problem, perfectly legal abortion.
But because she caused the fetus's death indirectly and unintentionally, it's manslaughter?
Are there any other legal scenarios where premeditation makes a criminal act into a legal one?
Unintended consequences.
Law gets refit to deal with that space. Stay tuned.
Here is the story by the woman who wasn't indicted:
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.
That's from buzzfeed.com so not the most reliable source, but I think the verbatim quotes can be considered reliable.
"Tomorrow, it will be another black woman, maybe for having a drink while pregnant."
From what I can tell, the DA (elected), assistant DA, and the Sheriff (elected) are all African Americans. Good bet that the Grand Jury was majority black.
The racial callout by the Yellowhammer person is bogus.
Let's indict all the persons whose accessible guns are used by children to kill themselves or others before we start indicting pregnant mothers who miscarry through the willful acts of other adults.
The racial callout by the Yellowhammer person is bogus.
It may be statistical.
Yancey Ward said...
Miss Reyes is a moron. She would have had no problem with the manslaughter charge had Jemison been indicted, right? I mean, Reyes could have clarified her position by saying she also thought the manslaughter charge against Jemison was inappropriate, but she didn't.
That's not it. It appears that the prosecutors went after Jones only after the grand jury failed to indict Jemison.
Which makes the decision to prosecute look incredibly arbitrary.
The state of Alabama has proven yet again that the moment a person becomes pregnant their sole responsibility is to produce a live, healthy baby and that it considers any action a pregnant person takes that might impede in that live birth to be a criminal act...
You say that like it's a bad thing....
Leave it to an abortion extremist to find something to bitch about in this sad, sorry event.
Alabama is awful.
It all come as a rude surprise to Amanda Reyes, but abortion by gunshot wound is not legal.
So, Alabama has a forward-looking perspective of human rights, and a rational and reasonable capacity to discern the viability of edge cases. One hundred years of progress has not impaired their judgment. Good for them.
So now this woman has a responsibility to keep her unborn fetus alive against any danger. Including being shot. Got it.
All the men in the altercation didn't jump in front of that bullet to protect the fetus. The State should send them to jail too.
A father was part of the creation of that fetus. What is his responsibility? He should know the woman was cray cray and it should be his responsibility to follow her around and protect that fetus from her. The state should put him in jail.
The store owner or manager saw the fight and if the woman was visibly pregnant well he knows that baby must be protected. Jail for him.
Look at all the reasons we can give the state to throw people in jail!
Jail for everyone!
Nothing could possibly go wrong.
Freedom without responsibility, the essence of post-modern feminism. Yes means yes until a woman changes her mind 23 years later.
Alabama is awful.
Alabama thinks the same about you, Titus. And it's not because of your ugly pooch.
Achilles said...So now this woman has a responsibility to keep her unborn fetus alive against any danger. Including being shot. Got it.
Do ya? Do ya got it?
How about "So this woman has the same responsibility and duty of care towards her unborn fetus she has towards any other innocent bystander who happens to be near her while she commits a crime." Crazy, right?!
Try this one: I'm walking my dog down the street. I see a gal in a MAGA hat and, understandably, flip out. I start by yelling at this jerk but then when she doesn't immediately apologize for her terrible views I begin punching her. She tries to run away but I prevent her--a neighbor calls the cops but they're 10 minutes away. She fights back, pulls out some pepper spray, and blasts me in the face. I fall over, eyes burning and face ironically as orange as that dastardly Dumpf, and inadvertently land on my dog, killing it. (Or if you want it to be closer she pulls out a revolver, shoots at me, misses, and kills my dog; same premise.)
The cops show up. The woman I attacked isn't sure she's going to press charges but they see my dead dog. They arrest me for animal cruelty. Boom.
Now when you read the story about that the next day do you say "geez, that's insane, this guy's getting charged for an accident that killed his dog, now we're saying that anytime someone's dog dies in an accident the owner will be charged?!"
Maybe that's how people would react, but that'd strike me as odd. It also strikes me as odd that a fetus would, in a similar scenario, merit LESS consideration from society/the state than a dog.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
Achilles said...So now this woman has a responsibility to keep her unborn fetus alive against any danger. Including being shot. Got it.
Do ya? Do ya got it?
How about "So this woman has the same responsibility and duty of care towards her unborn fetus she has towards any other innocent bystander who happens to be near her while she commits a crime." Crazy, right?!
So all of the people in that area had some responsibility right?
Or just her?
Oh you mean she is the person with such responsibility?
How convenient for you.
You can tell I'm not a good feminist because to these seem like contradictory attitudes:
1.) Women are special and deserve special consideration (socially, culturally, legally, etc) because they're the ones who can have and nurture children.
2.) It's naked oppression and morally reprehensible for anyone to expect a pregnant woman to treat her unborn child, while she's carrying it, with the same amount of care we expect everyone to have for innocent strangers in their vicinity.
I'm pretty sure I remember someone as smart as Professor Althouse taking a position like 1.) in the context of the morality of a draft and/or differential treatment of women (that is, different treatment not actually being an example of inequality because of the higher relative worth of women, for survival of the species). I have been reading hot takes expressing attitude 2.) for a while now, and I'm willing to bet quite a number of people hold both simultaneously!
To say both that you, as a class, merit special treatment and consideration (because you can be mothers) AND that you have less responsibility towards your unborn children than I have towards strangers seems contradictory.
If I'm standing next to someone's toddler while I commit some crimes and she's accidentally killed by one of my victims (in the act of defending themselves from me) do you think I wouldn't be charged for her death?!
The YellowHammer lady is just pissed that Planned Parenthood didn't get to kill the black baby first.
Speaking of racists, where did "Amanda" run off too? Bet we won't see much of her unless Chuck is around. Its kind of an Inverse Clark Kent.
Achilles said...Oh you mean she is the person with such responsibility?
Do I mean the person who took the intentional criminal actions that led to the death of the unborn child is responsible for the unintended consequences of her actions?! Yes, yes I do. Why wouldn't you?
Again: we're not talking about someone who is herself the victim of an accident. We're not talking about someone who was careless, or slightly negligent, or had something happen to them for no reason. We're talking about someone who committed an intentional criminal act and as the result of that act caused a death.
Non-pregnant people who fit that description are charged all the time--they typical and not unusual case is when a group of people commit robbery and another party kills one of the group; everyone in the group can then be charged for the death of their friend/accomplice! Their criminal actions resulted, unintentionally, in the death of their friend--they didn't shoot their friend and they didn't want them to die, but they will still be charged for that death.
You're saying "well if this is ok then pregnant women will be charged for any accident that occurs" but that simply does not follow--this charge is the result of an alleged criminal act.
Henry said...HoodlumDoodlum -- Was the woman who was shot charged with assault? Disturbing the peace? If the state has a case against her for something other than being shot while pregnant, why don't they bring that case.
I don't know, and I don't know--they may very well not even have a good case here. Again, I don't think any of us know enough about the facts of this case to say whether this woman is guilty.
IF the facts are as the police and prosecutor appear to believe they are, though, that the woman was committing criminal acts against someone else and in the course of that caused the death of her unborn child, it does not seem outlandish, to me, to charge the woman for that death. Why didn't they also charge her for other crimes? I do not know, but that doesn't directly bear on whether her being charged for THIS crime is crazy or not.
If I'm holding a newborn infant in my arms while I attack someone (at the hospital, because they won't let me smoke my congratulatory cigars inside) and that toddler dies when the person I'm attacking tries to shoot me in self defense, will I be charged for the death of that newborn infant?
Of course I will! My criminal actions resulted in the death of a child I had a duty to not intentionally nor negligently endanger.
Expecting that same level of care from a pregnant woman is offensively unthinkable, apparently. I do not understand.
the moment a person becomes pregnant their sole responsibility is to produce a live, healthy baby and that it considers any action a pregnant person takes that might impede in that live birth to be a criminal act
I'm sure that was a very careful display of piety on the author's part, letting know she's evolved from the dark days of 2017 when everybody thought there was just one kind of person who could become pregnant. Funny thing is, her need to genuflect to transgenders ends up absolving the state of Alabama of the charge of sexism she so obviously wants to make. By her own words, the state isn't driven by antipathy towards women, but by concern for pregnancy - whether (snort) it's a woman who becomes pregnant or someone else.
All these hypothetical because no one can cite an actual precedent. Parents who tragically lose their children don't get prosecuted, I don't care what statute can be stretched to say. This is about abortion craziness.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
Achilles said...Oh you mean she is the person with such responsibility?
Do I mean the person who took the intentional criminal actions that led to the death of the unborn child is responsible for the unintended consequences of her actions?! Yes, yes I do. Why wouldn't you?
I meant to say you mean she is the ONLY person with such responsibility?
There were a bunch of people around her and someone shot her.
But she is the only person going to jail? Are you sure she is the only person with responsibility here?
It sounds like you mean just her and only her. If so you are a giant hypocrite.
Or does everyone go to jail? Her significant other? The men that were involved in the altercation? The store manager?
You sure are all zippy about having the State put people in jail.
readering said...
All these hypothetical because no one can cite an actual precedent. Parents who tragically lose their children don't get prosecuted, I don't care what statute can be stretched to say. This is about abortion craziness.
You see that Hoodlum?
readering is more sane than you are and she is a lying leftist that thinks Trump paid a hooker to pee on a bed and the Russians are blackmailing him making him a puppet, wants open borders and supports infanticide.
You people are nuts. You have all sorts of reasons for the government to make shit up to throw people in jail.
If you want a law throwing pregnant women in jail for getting their fetus killed write that law.
But asking the government to make shit up so we can all live by your religious definition of morality is fucking insane and you are an fool for not noticing that slippery slope you are sliding down at the speed of light.
How come focus on pregnancy and abortion but not gun control!?
There is !GUN! as cause of death!!
Ricochet =>>> unintentional consequences etc.
Henry,
No, it sounds like both women were charged, but the one wasn't indicted, but that isn't completely clear. I suspect that the grand jury will likely refuse to indict Jones, too, but we will see.
Look, this is how felony murder/homicide works- if you participate in a crime in which someone is killed, you can be charged for that killing, even if you didn't pull trigger yourself- in fact, the trigger doesn't even have to be pulled by an accomplice, the death can result in the from the action of a different 3rd party's actions. You don't have to like it, but it is the law in all 50 states.
readering said...All these hypothetical because no one can cite an actual precedent. Parents who tragically lose their children don't get prosecuted, I don't care what statute can be stretched to say.
That's just not true, though. Parents who tragically lose their children DUE TO CRIMINAL ACTS THE PARENTS COMMIT absolutely do get prosecuted.
The case here are NOT about a complete accident. You guys keep talking about this as though the mother was just walking down the street, did nothing wrong, accidentally got shot, and is being prosecuted for her unborn child's death. That would, I agree, be crazy...but that's NOT what is alleged to have happened here.
Do you really meant to imply that parents aren't prosecuted when they commit crimes and those crimes result in the deaths of their children?
Are you intending to reference the joke about a kid who kills his parents and then asks for leniency because he's an orphan--if a parent commits a crime and accidentally kills their kid in the process they won't be prosecuted for killing their kid 'cause they're a grieving parent??
Yancey Ward said...Look, this is how felony murder/homicide works- if you participate in a crime in which someone is killed, you can be charged for that killing, even if you didn't pull trigger yourself- in fact, the trigger doesn't even have to be pulled by an accomplice, the death can result in the from the action of a different 3rd party's actions. You don't have to like it, but it is the law in all 50 states.
Sorry for the large quote, but thank you--that doesn't seem like some esoteric knowledge but the responses make it seem like it's a wacky, hard to understand or believe idea. Criminals get charged with crimes for the unintended deaths of their accomplices all the time.
Luckily I don't think many pregnant women have their unborn children killed when victims of those pregnant women's criminal acts defend themselves, so cases with this specific fact pattern are probably very rare. The principle and legal/logical framework being applied are very common, though!
Achilles said...I meant to say you mean she is the ONLY person with such responsibility?
She's the person who (allegedly) committed the crime that prompted the self-defense reaction, so yes, in this situation she's the only person with that responsibility. The store manager wasn't committing a crime. The people standing around weren't committing a crime. Her significant other wasn't committing a crime.
Why is that a difficult distinction to understand? Why do you describe her as "someone who got shot" as though she was simply standing there innocently...when in fact she was (allegedly) in the act of committing a crime that caused her victim to fire a shot in self defense?
When you commit a crime you become responsible for the consequences of that crime, whether you intended those consequences to occur or not. By intentionally committing the crime you take on the risk. Someone who is not committing a crime, who is blameless and not acting negligently in any way, is not responsible.
I'll try it again: same scenario as here but instead of an unborn child imagine a toddler or a small child by her side. She would still be responsible if that child was killed as a result of someone defending themselves from her criminal actions! Nothing is different. I don't know why you think this is some kind of absurd application of an established legal concept.
"Parents who tragically lose their children don't get prosecuted"
Bullshit. Guy gets into an accident with his kid in the car, and he was driving blitzed, and the kid dies, is getting charged with reckless endangerment AT LEAST.
You are really dumb.
Achilles,
If I found out my wife started a fight while pregnant that ended with the baby dying (by gunshot, kick, crowbar to the gut - doesn't matter), which is a completely avoidable situation (since she was the aggressor), I would not object to her being charged with negligent homicide.
Go ahead call me a statist. I usually agree with your opinions, but you really love talking super duper tough online and it phase me at all.
This is about the responsibility of a pregnant mother to not engage in criminal acts that result in her being directly in harms' way - for example, starting a fight.
Obviously, if a pregnant lady is DEFENDING herself from a fight that she DID NOT START, and the baby dies as a result of that defense, she ought not be charged with a thing.
But this pregnant moron decided it was brawling time, and this decision led directly to the death of her unborn child.
Lock her up.
If you disagree, that's cool, but I really don't see why.
"Let's indict all the persons whose accessible guns are used by children to kill themselves or others before ...." No gold stars for reducing the surplus population that is destroying the planet by addiction to fossil fuels, urban heat island effect, loss of habitat, roundup, and stuff?
For anyone who cares, here's how Reason frames the issue:
It's a terrifying interpretation of criminal justice—and one made especially poignant by taking place in a state that just criminalized almost all abortions and declared that fertilized eggs should have equal rights to the fully-formed women carrying them. Under this logic, pregnant women who are victims of violent crime could be held criminally liable anytime they're perceived to have done something to "invite" the violence against them.
Picking a physical fight, certainly picking a fight while pregnant, may not show the best judgment. But even if Jones did initiate the altercation, it does not follow that she knew or should have known her opponent was armed or that her opponent would use lethal force in response. Plenty of people—even sometimes pregnant women—get in altercations that don't end with anyone shooting anyone else.
Meanwhile, many more pregnant women engage in all sorts of behaviors that are probably OK but could harm a fetus if things go awry. Once we start holding women responsible for such unintentional harms, where do we draw the line? Is playing sports OK? Riding a bicycle? Is it OK to meet new people, even though they could turn out to be violent? What about driving on highways? Driving, period? Angering an abusive partner? Walking in a bad neighborhood?
Seems pretty simple to me:
If she was committing a crime, and someone died (baby, unborn or not), she should be charged.
If she wasn’t committing a crime, but someone died, she shouldn’t be charged (or indicted).
Post a Comment