To be clear, you are saying that a shooting victim is not a victim?
No trial; a grand jury made the decision (probably based on how the story was told by the DA, as @anon29537550 pointed out in another thread) to not indict for a trial.
8 Likes
Hm perhaps I misread. I think that the shooting is probably inextricably part of the fight. If the fight was separately tried, then maybe this is correct, but I don’t think that is the case. The shooter was brought to the grand jury who found her Innocent by reason of self-defense. Logically if she was defending her self the other person must be the aggressor, right? Maybe not, but still I don’t see any reason to believe they are separate incidents in the eyes of the law. Did I miss some thing to that effect?
You know, this could be a good angle for the ACLU in Alabama: bringing suits against townships for pollution and/or toxic water supply, any police officer who rough-handles or even frightens a pregnant woman, and lawmakers for passing laws that deny food and shelter to any pregnant person.
10 Likes
I’ve never heard of another case, in any state, where after someone was (in whatever format) determined to have acted in self defense, their victim was then found guilty instead.
How it works for white men, for example, is that no other charges are brought. It happened, it’s over, done deal.
14 Likes
Nope. The responsibility is always on the pregnant woman to avoid situations which may endanger her cargo. In these conditions, the woman “knowingly consumed toxic water”, “knowingly left her home without a male relative,” “knowingly was attempting to impersonate a fully realized human being with legal rights.” Talabama at it’s best.
21 Likes
I hate that you’re right.
14 Likes
Well when self-defense killing happens, usually the aggressor is dead, aren’t they. I have heard of civil cases where the family of the deceased is sued.
Yeah, I hate it at least as much…
3 Likes
(This, of all, things, figured into a dream I had back in the mid-90s. It ended* with me semi-conscious on a bathroom floor, having successfully (but accidentally) discharged a contraband ray-gun. I’ve got it written down somewhere.) *(EDIT: In the dream, I mean. I didn’t wake up from it on a bathroom floor etc.)
See also: Consistent life ethic.
“Knowingly lived in Alabama.”
9 Likes
Unfortunately in this case she DOES need to use the gun to defend herself if she’s losing the fight. The fact that she had a gun on her means she has to use it, if you carry a gun and lose the fight then the other person now has your gun. By carrying a gun, you force the altercation, ANY altercation, to be a life or death altercation. It’s absolute bullshit, but that’s the reality and it’s why gun laws in America are fucking awful. Any other industrialized civilization this wouldn’t be an issue, because you can’t just carry around a firearm, which means a fight isn’t automatically escalated to life or death stand-your-ground bullshit.
But y’know, protect yourself something-something-bullshit-reason-something… 'MURIKA!
PS this is a separate bullshit issue from the most egregious bullshit issue: that the woman was charged for GETTING SHOT AND LOSING HER UNBORN CHILD! That is something uniquely bullshit to the bible-thumping fucktards
2 Likes
Holy crap, seriously?
Axlotl tanks, indeed.
6 Likes
“Knowingly lived in Alabama.”
No, that will be the argument the centrists and moderate liberals make when they wash their hands of it on a national level.
6 Likes
Now, my understanding of the US system of government layers is limited, but how are people on the national level going to do anything about a state issue?
If you had read the article, you might notice it didn’t say shit about self defense. It said the grand jury chose to not indict her on manslaughter of the unborn fetus. The self defense argument was added purely by people within this thread
5 Likes
I was imagining it more in docosc’s context, e.g. “Ma’am did you, or did you not, knowingly live in Alabama?! Let the record show that the defendant affirmed. The state rests.”
1 Like
Exert the influence they can? Acknowledge the problem and work to address it in their own states because this is a problem in more than just Alabama? I dunno, seems to me there’s a lot more to be said and done.
2 Likes
Take this fetal personhood nonsense and run with it. Make the case in court that she would not have even been in this situation had it not been for the fetus’ unwanted interference. The fetus threw her hormones out-of-whack and made her irritable and less agile, all while impairing her judgement. The fetus’ interference was a major contributing factor to starting this altercation, making it more difficult for her to extricate herself, and escalating it to violence. The fetus is definitely no innocent victim here, and has a documented history of engaging In other similarity disruptive activities. Did we mention the fetus was black? Yeah, definitely no angel. The jury must acquit.
(This is a sad situation all around and I honestly don’t mean to come off as glib, but fetal personhood needs to be attacked head-on and this seems like maybe an opportunity for that.)
5 Likes
Huh. I wonder if she’d been driving with a corporation in the car…they’re people too, right?
3 Likes
“Personal responsibility*” strikes again! (*Does not apply to rich white men who might actually be responsible for something.)
10 Likes
“Knowingly lived in Alabama
This. And it always seems as if consequences of your “personal responsibility” only increase the less of a “person” you are deemed to be, suggesting that “people” are only “those free of consequence.” Ain’t that convenient.
11 Likes
