• Thank you for visiting Buffy-Boards. You obviously have exceptional taste. We just want you to know that:
    1. You really should register so you can chat with us!
    2. Twelve thousand people can't be wrong.
    3. Buffy-Boards loves you.
    4. See 1 through 3.
    Come on, register already!

Welcome to Alabama

The Bronze

Rogue Demon Hunter
Joined
Jul 11, 2013
Messages
2,790
Age
33
Location
Essex
Black Thorn

Buffy Summers

Yataro
Staff member
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
31,451
Location
The City of Angels
Sineya
Not that I necessarily agree with it, but they're actually saying if a pregnant mother is negligent and endangers their unborn baby, they will be held accountable. Gun rights have nothing to do with this (in this article, anyways).
 

WillowFromBuffy

Buffering...
Joined
May 11, 2019
Messages
257
Age
31
Yeah I know it's really about reducing women to the station of incubator.
Well, a pregnant woman should avoid putting their unborn child in danger, such as get into fights. You shouldn't get into fights ever, but especially if you are pregnant. It's the same if you're a father and you have your kid in the car with you; Don't go drag racing.

But what on earth was the mother doing that made the other party feel they had to shoot her in the stomach to defend themselves? People who claim guns keep people safe are insane. Guns make holes in people. Once a gun is introduced into an altercation, the chance of injury or death rises dramatically.
 

Buffy Summers

Yataro
Staff member
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
31,451
Location
The City of Angels
Sineya
Yeah I feel like the details of what this woman was doing that caused the person to shoot her would be helpful in this situation. I also feel like this sounds more like something that would be used by a defense attorney if the shooter had been arrested for it.
 

Spanky

I'm came here to chew bubblegum and go off topic.
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
19,548
Black Thorn
Judging from some key words such as "continued the fight" one lead one to believe that the shooter tried to leave or avoid the confrontation and the one shot continued to escalate it. I don't see an issue with it. Alabama has a stand your ground law, one criteria of meeting that is if someone is "Unlawfully and forcefully entering a home or car, or attempting to remove a person against their will" Seeing how the shot happened in the parking lot I could see that being a distinct possibility.
 

DeepBlueJoy

Lion Faced Kitteh
Joined
May 5, 2014
Messages
727
Location
East of Trouble
So wait. I shoot someone because they get angry with me, and because they are pregnant and i both shhot them AND kill a baby THEY go to jail? If she had not been pregnant would the shooter been liable?

I guess the "she was asking for it" defense applies to gun shots now!
How is it possible someone is shot and the shooter doesnt even get held?
This is an amoral and evil decision. 'Stand your ground' should be called 'licence to kill'.

Women are not broodmares. The goverment has no right to elevate the value of the unborn (who could die before birth) over a living breathing person. Insane no matter what the woman does. She did not give up her person card because she got pregnant.
 

DeepBlueJoy

Lion Faced Kitteh
Joined
May 5, 2014
Messages
727
Location
East of Trouble
I think a lot of assumptions are being made here based on very few facts.
Probably. Good point. Will do more research.

However, usually when a person shoots someone and it isnt self defense they usually get looked at. I have not heard findings of self defense. Frankly, other that a woman deliberately trying to harm her baby, the findings don't make any sense... Even then i would be asking if she was suicidal... Because seeking ro be shot would be indicative of that, but we put such people in mental health holds, not jail. No matter what, this situation is disturbing on many levels.
 

The Bronze

Rogue Demon Hunter
Joined
Jul 11, 2013
Messages
2,790
Age
33
Location
Essex
Black Thorn
She was shot and is being charged with manslaughter. That's terrifying. Doesn't matter if she was mouthing off, starting a fight or whatever else might be involved.

Sure the other person might well have been within their rights to defend themselves (in Alabama) but then that's either case closed or potentially an assault charge or whatever for the person starting it. Would seem a bit over the top after already taking a bullet.

This is exactly why the Handmaid's Tale is so scary to watch. What seems like a regular dystopian story to most is more like a guide book for others.
 

Buffy Summers

Yataro
Staff member
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
31,451
Location
The City of Angels
Sineya
Probably. Good point. Will do more research.

However, usually when a person shoots someone and it isnt self defense they usually get looked at. I have not heard findings of self defense. Frankly, other that a woman deliberately trying to harm her baby, the findings don't make any sense... Even then i would be asking if she was suicidal... Because seeking ro be shot would be indicative of that, but we put such people in mental health holds, not jail. No matter what, this situation is disturbing on many levels.
Well, the article says the shooter claimed they acted in self defense, and that they were charged initially but that a grand jury didn't find enough probable cause to indict, which would lead me to believe that they agreed with the shooter.

And I'm not saying that I agree that this woman should have been arrested, but again I don't know all the facts. What was she doing? Was she beating the shooter to death with a lead pipe so it really was self defense? Or was she just shouting angrily at her? We just don't know.

(Again, speculation) but there may be pressure from the baby's father also - he may be crying for justice for his child. The article was written to get a reaction I think, and doesn't lay out enough facts to really judge the case on it merits.

I mean, if the shooter had just walked up to the woman unprovoked and shot her, killing her baby, they would arrest and convict her for manslaughter. So, if the mother was responsible, should it be any less a crime? I don't know the answer to that. And of course, it all depends on what the law is. I suspect she'll get off though.
 

DeepBlueJoy

Lion Faced Kitteh
Joined
May 5, 2014
Messages
727
Location
East of Trouble
I am sorry, but short of her beating the other woman (and there is zero evidnce of that) i cant imagine any justification for the charge. She did NOT shoot her child. And I AM well aware of the rabid politics in Alabama.
If she were culpable maybe reckless endangerment or negligence, but any kind of HOMICIDE charge against her own child seems INSANE.
 

Taake

I can kill you with my brain
Staff member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
15,413
Age
33
Location
Stockholm, Swe
Black Thorn
This is exactly why the Handmaid's Tale is so scary to watch. What seems like a regular dystopian story to most is more like a guide book for others.
Let's be serious, this is like people saying that Leftists look at 1984 as an instruction manual (an argument you'll often see in some corners of the internet). It's just ridiculous hyperbole that aims to villainize another beyond reason, from either side.
 

nightshade

Headless chicken
Staff member
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
7,563
Location
England
Black Thorn
If she got shot to the point her child died why did she not immediately go to the hospital?
 

The Bronze

Rogue Demon Hunter
Joined
Jul 11, 2013
Messages
2,790
Age
33
Location
Essex
Black Thorn
Let's be serious, this is like people saying that Leftists look at 1984 as an instruction manual (an argument you'll often see in some corners of the internet). It's just ridiculous hyperbole that aims to villainize another beyond reason, from either side.
Except both books are about crushing authoritarianism rather than economics. The Handmaid's Tale has particular focus on placing women as third or fourth class citizens behind men and foetuses. Which is exactly what is playing out here.
 
Taake
Taake
*sigh*
Anyanka Bunny Slayer
Anyanka Bunny Slayer
Oh for God's sake...

Buffy Summers

Yataro
Staff member
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
31,451
Location
The City of Angels
Sineya
I am sorry, but short of her beating the other woman (and there is zero evidnce of that)
There's zero evidence that she didn't, either, though. It's easy to say, "Oh it's Alabama again!" but I feel like we need to look at articles today with a grain of salt, because things aren't always what they are made out to be. Having said that it could be that she is unjustly accused of this. That goes back to what is the law, what does state law define as manslaughter vs reckless endangerment etc. More facts are needed, which should come out if there is a trial.
 

Cohen

Warrior
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
1,552
Location
Neptune, California
I want to know what a person has to do, short of pulling out their own gun, that makes it okay for you to shoot them in self defense. I didn’t read this article but read another about this situation, and they were arguing over a boyfriend. What action did the pregnant woman do that justified pulling a gun and shooting her? I agree, there are many details missing. Even if someone continues to get in my face, I do not have a right to shoot them.

And certainly a woman should not be charged on murder or manslaughter of their unborn child’s death if someone shot them. Pregnant women get in confrontations all the time with other people. This is the same as if she would have been confronting someone and they pushed her down the stairs and miscarried. It was the other person’s actions who caused the death of the baby. This indictment starts a VERY slippery slope and scary precedent.
 

Spanky

I'm came here to chew bubblegum and go off topic.
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
19,548
Black Thorn
Well, being a gun(s) owner myself and having had a gun pulled on me on three different occasions, I will say the majority of people that actually pull guns, don't shoot. Although you should never pull a gun and not shoot.

I had a gun pulled on me once and it did nothing to deescalate the situation. In fact I made fun of him for doing so, as it was only a 22.

Based on my past experience, and again, this is anecdotal, if the person did not want to get shot they could have left. The line "continued the fight" leads me to believe they did not do so. But again, thats just based on my own past experiences and the little facts the article actually provides.
 
thrasherpix
thrasherpix
Based on this post it's hard not to see you as a criminal threatening others, and that the 3 times a gun was pulled on you but not fired was self-defense against your aggression. Unless you're a cop and for some reason that bothers me even more.

Spanky

I'm came here to chew bubblegum and go off topic.
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
19,548
Black Thorn
I want to know what a person has to do, short of pulling out their own gun, that makes it okay for you to shoot them in self defense.
Section 13A-3-23
Use of force in defense of a person.
(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:
(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.
(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.
(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.
(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:
a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;
c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.
(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:
(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.
(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.
(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.
(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §610; Acts 1979, No. 79-599, p. 1060, §1; Act 2006-303, p. 638, §1.)
 
Top Bottom