Criminal Justice

A Pregnant Woman in Alabama Was Shot in the Stomach and Miscarried. Now, Alabama Cops Are Charging Her With Manslaughter.

What the hell is going on with this state?

|

When expectant mother Marshae Jones was shot in the stomach last December, the 27-year-old woman survived, but her pregnancy did not. Now, Jones is behind bars and facing charges for the death of her five-month-old fetus. 

On Wednesday, Jones was taken into custody after a jury in Jefferson County, Alabama, indicted her for manslaughter, according to Alabama newspaper group AL.com. She'll be held in jail until her trial unless she can post a $50,000 bond.

Meanwhile, the woman who shot Jones—23-year-old Ebony Jemison—is free. Police initially charged Jemison with manslaughter as well, but a grand jury did not indict. 

Prosecutors allege that Jones started the altercation with Jemison, and that this makes Jones responsible for whatever happened as a result of her choice. 

"It was the mother of the child who initiated and continued the fight which resulted in the death of her own unborn baby," said Pleasant Grove Police Lt. Danny Reid. "Let's not lose sight that the unborn baby is the victim here. She had no choice in being brought unnecessarily into a fight where she was relying on her mother for protection."

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?

"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," said Amanda Reyes, executive director of abortion access group The Yellowhammer Fund, in a statement. "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." 

NEXT: SCOTUS Ruling on Adding a Citizenship Question to the Census Shows Wilbur Ross Was Defeated by His Own Lies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. [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.

    If it was self-defense, why was Jemison charged?

    1. I think the process is that prosecutors seek indictments based on a low standard of evidence like probable cause and judges or grand juries determine whether there is sufficient evidence to even have a trial (judges when it’s NBD, grand juries when it’s hot drama). Sounds like Jemison’s grand jury proceedings were a flop due to her having defended herself.

      1. And as everyone knows, grand juries are notoriously difficult to sway into rendering an indictment…

        1. The grand jury didn’t seem to have any problem indicting Jones, though.

            1. No, no, a crime is a crime, and all crimes should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, even if they’re not really “crimes.” These little matters can always be worked out in the appellate courts, there’s plenty of time. If they need any solid, informed advice on how to prosecute this case, they are welcome to call us here at NYU anytime. Did I mention that we have a good deal of experience with this kind of thing? We certainly like helping prosecutors try difficult cases. For a good example—which we were able to drag out for nine years for the sake of one of our most distinguished colleagues, although unfortunately not quite as successfully in the end as we were hoping—see the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “parody” case at:

              https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

        2. Right. That is why there are so many ham sandwiches free today.

      2. Grand jury use varies a lot at the state level.

        State Grand Jury Use

        In 23 states, indictments are required for certain serious crimes. These states are: Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

        In the 25 other states, a grand jury indictment is optional. In those states, charges may be brought by a document called the information. In many states, an information is written by a prosecutor, similar to the initial criminal complaint, but is reserved only for felony or serious charges. Typically an information is filed after a preliminary hearing, including those charges which were found supported by probable cause.

        1. 48 states huh. Are you sure this is current information?

    2. Because cops arrest, they rarely investigate.

    3. Next up, Alabama charges parents with child abuse, for teaching their kids about evolution.

      1. Meh, the clutching at pearls is a little overdone here. Or a lot. If you have the ability to extricate yourself from a situation and do not, maybe you should be held responsible. There’s usually more to these cases than Reason chooses to share.

        1. ” There’s usually more to these cases than Reason chooses to share.”
          That statement couldn’t be more accurate.
          In this case, either the “reporter” didn’t bother to find out “if Jones did initiate the altercation”, or did, and decided to omit that part.

    4. I suppose you could argue that pulling a gun and using deadly force was disproportionate to the situation, but in this day and age, it strains credibility to think a cop would think of that.

  2. Elizabeth, this article is trash. Your headline and caption on this article paint a very misleading picture that most people who only read headlines will walk away with.

    I notice how in the body of the article, you mention that this woman started the fight, thereby engaging in assault, and left her victim with every right to defend herself.

    Also, starting a violent altercation while pregnant is a clearly different situation in terms of liability than simply meeting a person. How on earth can you make that comparison? One involves you putting your baby in danger, while the other is just you being a victim of someone else.

    Get your head out of your ass, lady.

    1. The slope is slippery, but not very steep

    2. “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.”

      In what other context is the appropriate response “oh – the person who got shot started the argument? Pretty much makes it their fault, doesn’t it?”

      1. This wasn’t an argument. This was a fight.

      2. I believe in an affirmative right to self defense. I feel like we’re missing some details here-how intense was this fight, and was there any warning prior to the deployment of firearms? I do think employing lethal force without the possible threat of lethal force is immoral, but I’d want to know the sequence of events in this fight to see how justified Jemison was.

        Given that Jemison wasn’t even indicted, I’d guess she had a strong case for self defense.

        1. Given that Jemison wasn’t even indicted, I’d guess she had a strong case for self defense.

          Fair enough – the details do matter. If Jones was charging Jemison with an ax, the shooting could be justified. If they were just shouting each other down, no. If the jury found Jemison had no culpability, they must have felt it was closer to the former.

          I still don’t think she should be charged with the death of her baby, though.

          1. If she killed the baby through drug use would you agree with a non charge? The idea is that her crime was connected to harm of the child. Similar to attributing murder to anyone committing a felony even if they weren’t the trigger person.

            1. Did the mother commit a felony, though? Starting a fight does not necessarily rise to the level of aggravated assault. If it did, I also wonder if perhaps aggravated assault and battery might be sufficient charges for the crime she committed, without tacking on the manslaughter charge.

              1. Fine. Let’s go to dui. Generally a misdemeanor. Child dies in a dui related accident. Is the mother responsible?

                What level of crime is necessary to elevate?

                1. DUI is a very weird bit of case law, in that it often IS a felony charge if there is a death involved. So that’s kind of recursive-she committed a felony when she committed a felony.

                  I’m just asking here if the actual assault in this case is a felony-level assault, which I don’t know. If Jones was on top of Jemison and trying to slam her head into the pavement, like Trayvon Martin supposedly was, then Jemison was justified to shoot her.

                  I tried to find some details on this, and the only additional insight I learned was that “Jones was in a car when she was shot.” Is this is a case where both women were inside a car and wrestling? Was she in her own car and trying to run Jemison over? Was she in her car and trying to flee the scene? This context matters.

              2. To allow for use of a firearm in self defense, so much that a Grand Jury (known for rubber stamping everything) doesn’t even indite? Yes, it better well be aggravated assault.

                This is the only story I found with any more detail on the incident, which is still paltry. Attacking someone means that you are responsible for all injuries sustained by yourself or any third party.

                https://bckonline.com/2019/06/27/alabama-pregnant-woman-marshae-jones-indicted-in-fetus-death-while-shooter-goes-free/

              3. I’ve been trying to find this. No one is reporting anything other than the manslaughter charge, so without knowing how aggressive she was it’s hard to tell if the shooting was really justified. The grand jury apparently thought so, but the police didn’t immediately.

                1. In some areas of the country, the police are basically under orders not to consider shootings to be self defense, regardless of the situation.

            2. If she killed the baby through drug use would you agree with a non charge?

              Yes. As I also would if she went out dancing and slipped.

              1. So we disagree. She caused direct harm to the child through her actions. Generally we cite parents for this fact. We do it in all manner of crimes. The line you seem to draw is the child has to have exited the mother’s body. I do not agree with that line.

                1. The line you seem to draw is the child has to have exited the mother’s body. I do not agree with that line.

                  Fair enough – it’s a line honest people disagree over.

        2. If a single punch was thrown, or a shove sufficient to take one off their feet was issued then the intensity had reached sufficient level. Either of those can and has directly caused deaths.

          I do not know the specifics of Alabama law, but most states allow lethal force against threats of ‘serious’ bodily injury, often defined to include sexual assaults.

    3. How violent was the fight? Getting bitch-slapped or pushed around is not enough to justify shooting someone. Getting choked or seriously pummeled is.

    4. “Your headline and caption on this article paint a very misleading picture that most people who only read headlines will walk away with.”

      All the News that Fits The Narrative.

      Reason is the Pomo Left. This kind of dishonesty is what one should *expect* in articles at Reason.

    5. correct lLvi
      If anyone anywhere starts a fight and someone, an innocent bystander gets harmed even if harm is done by the initial victim, the person who instigated the situation is the one charged with the crime. only difference here is it was her own baby no different than if her child was standing by her side.

    6. This is clearly a case of a woman resorting to an unconventional abortion procedure. Abortion by cop was too risky.

  3. “Under this logic, pregnant women who are victims of violent crime”

    What about pregnant women who attack people and as a result, lose the baby?

    1. The State of Alabama is ethically consistent — Jones committed ‘abortion by assaulting a third party.’ The problem really seems to be the consideration of fetuses as having equal rights to their mothers.

      Kids don’t have equal rights to their parents when they’re born, do they?

      1. I’m fairly certain you completely missed my point.

      2. The problem really seems to be the consideration of fetuses as having equal rights to their mothers.

        Some of us even suggested that this would result in mothers being held accountable for wrongful deaths of their own fetuses. We were told we were crazy.

        1. We were told we were crazy.

          If you continue through the link you will eventually get to this little tidbit:

          Jones, a 27-year-old black woman, is being prosecuted by the office of Lynneice Washington, the first black woman district attorney in Alabama – a Democrat. A grand jury looked at the evidence against Jones and Jemison, and decided Jones was the one who committed the crime.

          The left will eat its own. It is inevitable.

          1. The AL.com newsfeed is a goldmine:

            A Fairfield woman has been charged with murder in the death of a man who was carjacked, beaten and left for dead before an off-duty officer ran over him.

            Further on in the story:

            Shortly after the suspects fled the scene and left the Camaro driver laying in the roadway, an off-duty Birmingham police officer in his private vehicle was driving down Third Avenue and, without seeing the man in the road, ran over the Camaro driver.

            Jackson was pronounced dead on the scene. The motorcyclist was taken to UAB Hospital but is expected to survive. The off-duty officer was not injured.

            A person trained in accurate observation to the point that his split second judgement of a situation is evidence that will be used to determine if lethal force is justifiable failed to see a grown man lying prone in road. At least this hero wasn’t injured…

            1. At least this hero wasn’t injured…

              Thank God he will continue protecting the Public.

        2. So you think miscarriages and assault are the same thing. Says more about your logic than anything.

          1. So you think miscarriages and assault are the same thing.

            Not sure where you got that, other than your love of playing “gotcha.”

            What I’m saying is that I don’t want the government involved in making that determination, because it doesn’t have the competence and this is not a problem that needs government interference.

            1. It is involved on that determination in all sorts of child endangerment crimes. So you advocate for all child endangerment crimes to be removed from the books? Or only when the child hasnt yet passed through a vagina?

              1. So you advocate for all child endangerment crimes to be removed from the books?

                Most of them, yes. Perhaps all – depends on how you define that term. But the government inserts itself into people’s lives in the name of saving them way too much, IMHO. I don’t buy into the notion that it’s generally the case that children need to be saved from their parents by the government.

                Or only when the child hasnt yet passed through a vagina?

                More-so then, yes, as the child is not yet an independent being at that point.

                1. “…as the child is not yet an independent being at that point.”

                  So, in other words, until the child is 18+?

    2. Ya, this seems more like the standard logic for murder during other crimes like arson, right? Someone dies because you are commiting a crime that put them at risk, that death is on you. The only difference here is that it’s extended to the fetus, which is pretty standard in red states, I think. Picking a fight while pregnant endangers the child by the same logic the author here tries to use to deny it: you never know how the victim will fight back.

      A whole lot of hype surrounding this one. I can’t help but notice most website bury the fact that she started the fight at least a few paragraphs into the article after they already primed you with “a pregnant lady was shot and charged with manslaughter, her shooter went free.” I expected better from Reason. You don’t have to like the charge, but don’t try to bury the facts.

  4. “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. ”

    And? That isn’t what she’s being charged with.

  5. “But even if Jones did initiate the altercation . . . ”
    She should have known that starting the fight is illegal, and not done it.

  6. I’m with ENB here, even if I don’t agree with all of her logic. It comes down to an issue of positive and negative rights, and it becomes problematic if you start assuming chains of causality based on mere probabilities.

    For example, let’s pretend that her fetus was a born child under the age of two. This baby is still dependent on parental care. If Jones starts a fight that causes her to be held in police custody, causing the child to be seized by CPS, and then someone at CPS murders the child, do you charge Jones with murder for setting that whole sequence of events in motion? After all, if she’s not starting the fight, she’s not held by police, and she’s not thinking about the consequences of people around her.

    Ultimately, limit any charges in this case to the actions that Jones knowingly undertook. If she’s guilty of assault and battery, charge her for that. The manslaughter charge is too big of a stretch for me.

    1. More appropriately, if Jones starts a fight and someone shoots her 2-year old, Jones would not be charged.

      1. I don’t think either of those situations exactly analogize, nor do they analogize closely enough.

        Perhaps a closer example would be, if Jones dragged her child with her into a fight, and the child is injured as a result, what would the consequences be.

        Child endangerment? Probably.

        That said, the discussion here seems to be splitting in two directions. One, an intelligent discussion of how responsible the mother is. Two, how disingenuous ENB is. One of those discussions is interesting, the other is just another Thursday.

        1. Perhaps a closer example would be, if Jones dragged her child with her into a fight, and the child is injured as a result, what would the consequences be.

          Child endangerment? Probably.

          That’s a fair point. Although I would toss in that there’s a more active element to dragging your kid around vs. walking around pregnant (combined with young and stupid).

          I could see some sort of negligence or reckless endangerment charge, but I also am not completely comfortable establishing the precedent that the state can hold mothers accountable for endangerment when they miscarry.

          Where do we draw the line on holding pregnant mothers accountable for properly caring for their fetuses? Smoking? Drinking? 10 years ago it was bad to smoke pot while pregnant, now it’s good. Do we really want the state involved in this at that level?

          1. “That’s a fair point. Although I would toss in that there’s a more active element to dragging your kid around vs. walking around pregnant (combined with young and stupid).”

            Would the best analogy be: “if Jones had her infant strapped to her chest, started a fight and the baby was shot”?

            1. Would the best analogy be: “if Jones had her infant strapped to her chest, started a fight and the baby was shot”?

              Probably not. I’m reminded of the example of my mother-in-law, who got pregnant accidentally at age 18 and simply decided to pretend she wasn’t pregnant. Pretty well fooled herself even. Engaged in a lot of behavior awildseaking would jail her for.

              As any parent knows, the first pregnancy is pretty surreal and doesn’t really register until the child is born. I’m not saying people shouldn’t be expected to be aware that they’re pregnant, but some wayward young lady wandering around pregnant and not really thinking anything of it is not really the same as a mother dragging a kid around.

            2. That sounds about as close as you could realistically get with the analogy.

        2. Better analogy: Jones has her baby in the car, goes drag racing, and another racer hits her car, killing her baby. Who’s fault is it? Jones’ fault.

          1. Your analogy isn’t quite right – drag racing on a race track is not a crime. It’s more like she went drag racing in the street and crashed into a car that wasn’t involved in the race.

            Jones committed a crime (assault and battery). The person who defended herself did not commit a crime. Jones’s unborn baby died as a result. That is clearly Jones’s fault. She could also have been charged with killing the fetus if the victim of the assault had pushed her away, and Jones fell in a way that killed the baby.

            However, treating the death of an unborn child as murder, rather than some lesser charge, is a fairly novel law. When Roe v. Wade was decided, there was no law that I know of in any state of the US that treated killing an unborn child as murder. If there had been, abortionists and their patients would have both faced the death penalty.

            1. “…drag racing on a race track is not a crime.”

              No, but ‘on a track’ is a qualifier that I’m not sure the OP intended. And – even if so – drag racing is still a high risk activity, doing it yourself is one thing, doing it with a child that has no choice (and little if any appropriate protection) is textbook reckless disregard.

      2. That’s untrue. In many (most) states, if someone is harmed or killed in the course of committing a felony, they are held responsible for that crime as well. So if Jones was committing felony assault and her two-year-old was shot during that crime, she would be charged.

      3. Actually, yes. She can. The situation that could arise is a bit different, but someone who starts a fight to the point where self defense is necessary is responsible for everything that happens. This includes property damages and third parties injured. Most comparable, if the child was on the other side of a wall and a stray bullet killed them, then it would not be the shooter, but the instigator of the fight who caused the death. This isn’t even anything that you need to go to law school for.

      4. “someone shoots her 2-year old”

        Depends on the hows and whys of the shooting. Jones starts a fight and the person being assaulted draws down and fires directly at the two year old and only the two year old. Yeah, that’s not on Jones.

        Jones starts a fight in the presence of her two year old. The person being assaulted fires a shot at Jones in self defense, that shot passes through Jones (or misses Jones entirely), strikes and kills an innocent bystander (the two year old.)

        Yeah, Jones would be probably be charged – because the facts of the case are almost identical( or near).

        Try the same story where Jones brings her two year old along on a bank robbery, and the kid gets killed by a security guard.

    2. Whoa, that’s too much common sense! Where did you get that; are you authorized to have this uncommon thing?!?

      1. I have plenty to spare, but perhaps that’s why I’m not an Alabama legislator.

    3. Ultimately, limit any charges in this case to the actions that Jones knowingly undertook. If she’s guilty of assault and battery, charge her for that. The manslaughter charge is too big of a stretch for me.

      Agree 100%.

      1. And your views on a mother who ODs and kills their child? Just drug possession charges?

        1. And your views on a mother who ODs and kills their child? Just drug possession charges?

          No – I don’t think drug possession should be a crime.

      2. Reckless disregard gets you manslaughter. Starting shit in the presence of defenseless toddlers (yours or anyone else’s) is a bad idea.

    4. The problem is there is causality for what happened and not for your example. Mothers being arrested for anything doesn’t endanger their children. Expecting mothers fighting with children in their wombs does. Potential murderers working for CPS has nothing to do with CPS. Bodily harm resulting from physical altercations has everything to do with physical altercations.

    5. ” then someone at CPS murders the child”

      The shot was fired in self defense, and hence a charge of murder is inapplicable.

      Try again.

      1. Not necessarily. Had the initial assault been a felony (e.g. shooting or stabbing) then the charge could be felony murder.

    6. I kind of agree with your point, but that’s a pretty bad analogy because it enters a third party at a different time. In that case you’d charge the CPS agent. In this case, if self-defense was necessary then the actions that killed the child are a direct consequence of someone stopping a crime against their person.

      I think the problem here is that the authorities are operating on a paradigm that if someone died in an altercation, someone MUST be charged. And unless facts come out that show the shooting was absolutely necessary, this is not a place to apply that paradigm. There is often a gap where you can have reasonable doubt about both parties culpability.

      That said, this is not that far out of the ordinary. The way everyone is blowing it up is tripping my media lie-dar.

    7. For example, let’s pretend that her fetus was a born child under the age of two. This baby is still dependent on parental care. If Jones starts a fight that causes her to be held in police custody, causing the child to be seized by CPS, and then someone at CPS murders the child, do you charge Jones with murder for setting that whole sequence of events in motion?

      No. Custody was taken from Jones when she was arrested. There’s a legal process there. The state takes custody and liability.

      Why pretend anything?

      It’s pretty SOP that if an additional crime happens because of the crime you committed, you are liable for the crime you intended to commit and any ancillary crimes that occur as a result of you committing the initial crime.

  7. As the instigator of the fight, she was not a victim of violent crime.

    Words mean things.

    1. For the Pomo Left, words are only tools to manipulate others. Accurately modeling reality is entirely beside the point.

  8. The headline is misleading, given the minimal facts presented.

    Suppose Jemison out of the blue had shot Jones. Would Jemison have been charged with murdering the fetus? You betcha!

    Suppose Jones pointed a gun at Jemison — how many people would fault Jemison for shooting Jones, and for Jones being charged with her fetus’ death?

    Here all we know is that Jones started a fight and Jemison ended it in self-defense. We don’t know how it escalated. “Fight” and “altercation” leave a pretty wide gap on their own, then you throw in a grand jury letting Jemison go — a huge range for that kerfuffle.

    Instead of taking knee-jerk offense at murder of a fetus and comparing it to abortion, how about some real facts as to what that “fight” actually involved?

    From the minimal data presented, everything sound perfectly plausibly reasonable. The alternative is that the bigoted cops and prosecutor and grand jurors were all out to charge someone with the fetus’ death — but they had a perfectly good candidate available, and they let her go in favor of a less likely one! That makes one wonder if Jemison was white and everyone involved was racist — but why would racists come to the defense of a black fetus?

    No, the most plausible explanation is the one offered. There is no story here.

    1. Increasing the risk of injury is not the same as causing injury. For fuck’s sake. This is the kind of logic liberals use to try to ban all sorts of things.

      1. It’s the same logic conservatives use to charge one burglar with murder when his partner dies from a homeowner shooting him.

        I said nothing about the charges being justified in any moral sense. I said the only plausible explanation is the one offered by the authorities, and that the outrage is misplaced. Bring in abortion is just hysteria.

        1. Bring in abortion is just hysteria.

          Partly, but there is also a recognition that these laws opening up people for double murder charges when they kill a pregnant woman were put in place by anti-abortion activists looking to firm up the precedent that fetuses count as people and that the killing of one is full-blown murder.

          As I mention elsewhere, the point was raised at the time that this would result in mothers being charged for murder for the deaths of their own fetuses.

          1. Double murder charges for killing pregnant women have been pretty common throughout the ages–even when infants lives were a lot cheaper than they are today.

            As I mention elsewhere, the point was raised at the time that this would result in mothers being charged for murder for the deaths of their own fetuses.

            Call me when someone who wasn’t miscarrying due to commission of a felony is arrested and we’ll talk.

    2. Physical altercations tend to escalate, that is common sense. It is simply not possible, having started one, to know where it will end.

      Start one illegally and wherever it ends, that outcome is both morally and legally upon the initiator.

  9. “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,

    So if one crosses a state line to get an abortion, what’s Alabama’s action?

    1. It’s time to build a wall!!!

    2. Depends on which way they are going – – – –

  10. I’m glad to see the comments to this nonsensical article make sense.

    1. I am stunned at how for one of the very few times ever that I have read, the Reason comment section has a reasonable discussion instead of rivaling YouTube for godawful comment section award.

  11. Seems that preventing her from reproducing was a good thing. All’s well that ends well. Let her go free on the condition that she gets her tubes tied.

    1. Let her go free on the condition that she gets her tubes tied.

      While I wouldn’t support compulsion, I would absolutely support offering this service to her for the benefit of society.

      1. It wouldn’t be compulsion. She would have the option of serving her sentence for manslaughter instead.

  12. Not the best examples at the end there. Pregnant women who drink alcohol should be jailed. Same as ones who smoke. You’re literally giving your child FAS or outright murdering them because you’re a junkie. Jailing poor people for being pregnant is a bad idea, but discouraging pregnancy for people who can’t afford it is.

    1. Pregnant women who drink alcohol should be jailed. Same as ones who smoke.

      I really can’t see a libertarian justification for that. What about new mothers who have their kids in apartments with lead paint? What about pregnant mothers who eat shellfish?

      1. Where you live and what you can eat aren’t as much a choice as drinking and smoking and they certainly don’t have as direct of a relationship with fetal harm. Shellfish can be made safe, lead paint can be mitigated, alcohol/cigarettes/other drugs cannot.

        1. alcohol/cigarettes/other drugs cannot

          Sure they can. Less than a glass of wine or beer a day can actually be good for you during pregnancy. So can a little MJ. Or a lot of MJ. Smoking tobacco only seems to harm people predisposed to being harmed by it (not that you can know in advance), and actually benefits those who are not harmed by it. Opiates are in fact harmless to fetuses as long as they clear your system before birth, which is why it’s pretty common to give morphine to mothers in labor.

          Anemia, OTOH, can have a significant negative effect during pregnancy, and diet is as voluntary as anything. Enforceable standards for iron intake for pregnant mothers? Charge them with child endangerment if you see them eating white bread?

          1. How about not getting into a fight so that your child is fatally shot?

      2. There is no libertarian justification for personal responsibility. Even if you can prove that their actions caused harm to others.

        I say that sarcastically, but this is how many libertarians think.

        The ideology is fine, but there are too many adherents that are intellectually lazy in its application.

      3. Kill them all and have their babies raised by righteous non-socialist people.

    2. Better than anything else that’s been said here, this comment illustrates why this case is premised on such terrible logic. And why Elizabeth Nolan Ryan is right to be concerned about its logical and its real consequences for people.❤️

      1. Better than anything else that’s been said here, this comment illustrates why this case is premised on such terrible logic. And why Elizabeth Nolan Ryan is right to be concerned about its logic and its real consequences for peoples’ lives.❤️

        Reply

  13. This is an illustration of what a 5-month old fetus looks like:

    https://assets.babycenter.com/ims/2015/01/pregnancy-week-20-fetal-movement_4x3.jpg

    A couple observations:

    -The fetus in the picture is white, but the fetus that died was black. Ms. Reyes should have kept that in mind before playing the race card. Don’t black lives matter?

    -Five months, when the mother can feel the movement of the fetus, was classified under the old law as “quickening,” literally meaning coming to life. Today of course we know the baby is alive from conception, but the point is even under the unenlightened medieval ideas which choicers love to invoke (to “prove” early abortions are OK), this baby was definitely a living person.

    -I have no idea of the grand jury’s allegations are true or not. In general, acting in a way which endangers human life, if a death forseeably results, can be punished.

    1. “In general, acting in a way which endangers human life, if a death forseeably results, can be punished.”

      A starts fight with B
      B pulls gun and shoots C

      Wouldn’t the issue of was it foreseeable turn on A knowing that B was armed BEFORE the fight started?

      1. I don’t know how Alabama will ultimately interpret its laws here – though I would think that in a sensible jurisdiction, if you attack someone, a reasonable person might foresee some kind of fatal outcome – gun, knife, bashed head, whatever.

        Or suppose you have a baby carried on your chest in one of those baby-carriers, and you choose to attack someone who pulls out a knife and the baby gets fatally stabbed in the confusion. Foreseeable?

        (All this assumes the grand jury’s allegations are true, though to be sure I don’t know if this is so)

        1. And really, a large portion of this hinges on how severe the assault/battery is, which is very much missing from this story. I’d like more details.

          Simple battery could include something like a woman slapping me across the face. Maybe I deserved it, maybe I didn’t, but I’m not justified, just because of the battery, to then pull a knife and stab her with it. That’s not self-defense.

          The grand jury ultimately accept the self-defense argument, but I’d like to see the facts to judge for myself rather than trusting that a group of anonymous strangers in Alabama recognized the difference.

      2. “Wouldn’t the issue of was it foreseeable turn on A knowing that B was armed BEFORE the fight started?”

        No. The gun is just a tool B used to defend herself, and the unborn child or innocent bystander could have been killed in a bare-handed fight. Consider this:

        A starts a fight with B. (And by starting a fight, I don’t mean yelling, I mean assault _and battery_.)
        B pushes A away.
        A staggers back, knocking over the old man C behind her. C falls, inflicting fatal head injuries.

        C’s death was a possible, although unlikely, result of the A starting the fight, and in most states A would be prosecuted for at least manslaughter, and might be prosecuted for felony murder if the original battery was felonious.

        In the actual case, the death of Jones’s baby was a possible result of her starting the fight, and even without a gun, it’s not as unlikely as C’s death in the scenario above. If you start any kind of physical fight, someone might fall. Even hair-pulling and scratching can cause a fall. _Every_ fall could result in death, but when a pregnant woman falls, the risk is considerably higher.

    2. I’d argue still that being “alive” is not the same as being a human, or being a person. There are plenty of living things which don’t quite reach personhood. That philosophical distinction is beyond my capacity to unravel, of course.

      I do think five months is absolutely too late in the process for abortion to be legal, absent a severe health risk to the mother. That’s a point where nerve endings are developed sufficiently for the fetus to feel pain. But the “heartbeat” bill is poorly legislated as well, with somewhat deceptive labeling. Six weeks is too early for a cutoff, since you’re talking about a fetus about the size of a blueberry at that point, barely differentiated at all.

      1. With all due respect to Dr. Seuss (who didn’t like prolifers appropriating his line), “a person’s a person no matter how small.”

      2. I’d argue still that being “alive” is not the same as being a human, or being a person.

        As evidenced by the fact that both gametes prior to conception can be called every bit as much “alive” as the zygote post-fertilization.

        I do think five months is absolutely too late in the process for abortion to be legal, absent a severe health risk to the mother.

        In theory I agree, but in practice who is best positioned to make that call – the mother and her doctor, or Congress?

        1. Who is best positioned to decide what to do with a black man suspected of raping a white woman – the victim in consultation with her lynch mob, or some politicians in Congress or the state house?

          1. The judge and jury that have actually heard the evidence.

            1. Likewise with someone accused of abortion.

      3. Under what circumstances are you comfortable with the government deciding that a human is not a person and therefore does not have rights? What exactly is the criteria for government to make that determination?

    3. Come one, Eddy, that’s not what quickening is. You should know better. Quickening is when you kill an immortal and absorb their power.

      1. That, too.

        *cough* nerd *cough*

  14. The decision is logically consistent with the idea that the initiator of violent action is the one ultimately criminally liable for the outcome of it. If Jemison had shot and killed a bystander while credibly protecting herself from a violent attack, Jones would be equally as guilty of manslaughter.

    My only point of contention with the prosecution is the implication she is uniquely liable because of her responsibility as a mother to the person who died. She is liable because of her responsibility *not to attack someone else* and her criminal negligence in not caring who may have been injured as a result.

    1. My only point of contention with the prosecution is the implication she is uniquely liable because of her responsibility as a mother to the person who died.

      Not sure where that is implied. The prosecution is most likely based on your same logic. Through the link:

      Alabama always charges criminals with the unintended consequences of their crimes, like almost four-fifths of the states. If you walk into a bank with a hold-up note and an old lady is killed when a bystander opens fire, you will inevitably be charged in her death.

      1. It’s from the original article, Reid is quoted as saying:

        [The fetus is] “dependent on its mother to try to keep it from harm, and she shouldn’t seek out unnecessary physical altercations”

        I think that is beside the point. The criminal code at play here is that any injury to innocent bystanders (regardless of their age or relationship to the aggressor) is on the person who started the altercation.

    2. You’re talking about felony murder/assault charges.

      The underlying assumption is that, if a person commits a felony, which a serious crime, any injuries or harm that occur as a result of the commission of that felony are linked to perpetrator of the felony.

      However, it’s possible that her assault/battery on the woman did not rise to the level of felony. We have misdemeanor levels of assault for more minor crimes. We don’t allow shopkeepers to shoot 9 year olds for pocketing candy bars, right? So it comes down to just how severe the actual assault/battery was. And if that’s sufficient to rise to the level of felony, I’m not sure if we need to take on the manslaughter charges in this case.

      1. The fault here is ENB’s probalbly-deliberately vague description of the incident.

        In every state you ha e to be in fear for your life or in danger of severe bodily harm to shoot someone in self-defense. The grand jury, which had much more information than we do, judged that Jones’ attack met that threshold.

    3. It pains me that it took this long in the comments for someone to raise this point. To put it succinctly, had an innocent bystander been shot instead, the charge against Jones would have been….wait for it….

      Manslaughter. Also, this is not analogous to felony murder since the death was a direct result of Jones’ actions, not the actions of an accomplice.

      1. I’ll also add that this case has nothing to do with Alabama’s new abortion law, and is consistent with the criminal code of even some “blue” states. This article implies that this is a consequence of the new Alabama law to such an extent that the author’s failure to state this explicitly causes this article to rise to the level of “fake news.”

  15. I have to wonder if this happened on the set of the Jerry Springer show.

  16. I HATE the tone of this article. The fact that Jones was shot goes up front and center, and the circumstances leading to her being shot are mentioned as afterthoughts. Same framing the anti-gun media uses to make aggressors shot by another in self defense as the victims.

    I think there are two separate issues here:
    1. Was Jones the aggressor in some kind of physical altercation? And how severe was this altercation?
    2. Is charging Jones with manslaughter reasonable?

    For question 1, with what very little we know, it seems the situation was muddy because both Jones and Jemison were charged with crimes. A grand jury declined to indict Jemison (the shooter), which tells us they believed Jones WAS the aggressor and the altercation was severe enough to justify use of deadly force by Jemison. Whether Jones knew or did not know Jemison was armed is irrelevant. Whether other fights end without getting shot is not relevant, if THOSE are fights where one person slaps another and THIS was a fight where Jones was on top of Jemison and beating her skull against the pavement.

    For question 2, I can see arguments either way. I disagree with saying this is unintentional harm similar to an unforeseeable accident while driving. The more apt comparison is an accident while you were driving 100 MPH on the freeway, or in otherwise reckless fashion. Fighting of any kind is an inherently very dangerous activity, and one to be avoided if at all possible. Again, we know allmost nothing here, so all I can go on is what the authorities did, assuming they acted rightly. Quite often they don’t. But if Jones really was the aggressor in a fight, she deserves a pretty serious criminal charge.

  17. I seem to remember an article this morning about how the Democratic candidates’ “prochoice” extremism led them into all sorts of disgusting policy positions.

    At least Slade is sometimes allowed to balance out ENB.

    1. Partisanship puts lots of people far outside the mainstream on abortion (which is, and has been for a long time, that it should be legal pre-viability).

      1. What perverse Solomon enacted a “mainstream consensus” which splits the baby’s rights this way?

        1. The majority of the American public.

          1. Compare the consensus vis-a-vis socialism vs. the consensus vis-a-vis libertarianism, and see how wise the majority is.

      2. Yeah, partisanship is absolutely deadly to any kind of reasonable position on an complex issue like abortion. Any moderate position will be cast as being weak in your convictions, no matter how well-thought-out your moderate position is.

        It’s not a binary issue, but people are arguing from binary positions, if that makes sense.

        1. Of all the issues for libertarians to be moderate about, they choose the issue about when human personhood and human rights begin.

          1. A pig has more intelligence, emotional depth, and capacity to feel pain than a five month fetus. Do you eat pork, Eddy?

            1. Is that Long pig?

            2. A pig has more intelligence, wit, and value than you too, eunuch

            3. “A pig has… ”

              At best that is pure supposition based upon morphologic comparisons of a fully devloped CNS and a still developing CNS. Unless you can point me to studies involving actual living breathing five month old fetus.

              More like it’s an ass-pull.

          2. This isn’t really a libertarian issue, as evidenced by the comments on this story. Libertarians have a very wide divergence of positions on this. Moreover, it’s a shitty excuse for a partisan issue, since there are pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats.

            Ultimately the definition of “personhood” is such a major issue that is little bearing on where we fall on the economic issues that mostly drive political alignment.

            1. This isn’t really a libertarian issue, as evidenced by the comments on this story.

              ^ This. It bugs me when people on either side of this issue present their position as “the libertarian one.” Which side your cold and calloused libertarian heart falls on depends on the very abstract and thorny question of “personhood” and what it consists of. And whatever you think on that question, the “answer” isn’t obvious or given.

              1. In that case there seems to be a slight gap in libertarian doctrine.

                “Human persons are entitled to certain rights unconditionally, and woe to the government which violates…wait, you’re asking who a human person is? That’s above my pay grade.”

                1. I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.

              2. Well actually, once you decide what defines a person, you’re pretty close to coming up with a position in the abortion discussion. Once you recognize the point where a potential human life becomes a person, his or her negative right to live is very clear.

                If you say it’s at birth, if you say it’s at viability, if you say it’s at conception, you can establish your libertarian values from there. But libertarianism isn’t going to give you the answers on defining personhood.

                1. There is only one position that is logically consistent with libertarianism.

                  We know that, left to the standard process, barring accident or genetic defect, a fetus will become a human being.

                  This is a fact.

                  Among other things,

                  We theorize that there is a point at which the fused egg and sperm acquire the state we call ‘humanity’.

                  We theorize that this point may exist somewhere between conception (the initial fusing of egg and sperm) and birth.

                  We theorize that at some point the fused egg and sperm do NOT have humanity.

                  None of this is fact. The various theories are based on objective states–when the heart begins to beat, when the brain first fires a neuron, and on subjective states, when the fetus first can feel pain, when it starts to move.

                  In short we have no idea whether or not any of these theories works.

                  But we have a fact.

                  And it behooves us to err on the side of caution when that fact is the hinge upon which all rights, responsibilities, and liberties hangs.

                  Life. The unliving have no rights. They have no responsibilities and can have no liberty.

                  It behooves a libertarian, in the name of the NAP, to err on the side of not taking a life–even though we remain unsure of all save that it will be a human being.

                  1. “There is only one position that is logically consistent with libertarianism.”

                    Bullshit. All of your behooves are nothing more than arguments in favor of your preferred position. You’ve done nothing to demonstrate that any other position is inconsistent with libertarianism.

                    1. It is inconsistent with the NAP to take someone else’s life save in self defense.

                      We know, as a fact, that a fetus will become a person.

                      We don’t know precisely when that happens. It could be at any point during development.

                      To remain in line with libertarian ideals, we would err on the side of caution.

                    2. “To remain in line with libertarian ideals, we would err on the side of caution.”

                      That’s just like, your opinion, man. You’ve done nothing to demonstrate that any other position is logically incompatible with libertarianism.

                      “It is inconsistent with the NAP to take someone else’s life save in self defense.”

                      It’s also inconsistent with the NAP to use the power of the government to force someone to do something against their will. Before the fetus is alive, it’s a violation of the NAP to prevent women from getting abortions. You can’t just handwave that away.

                      “We know, as a fact, that a fetus will become a person.”

                      And as others have already pointed out, libertarianism has virtually nothing to say on the question of when that will happen.

  18. The “victim” started the fight that got her shot.

    Let’s take an analogy. You’re the mother of a one year old, who is in an approved child seat in the passenger seat of your car. You then go drag racing with your friends, and get t-boned on the freeway at 70 miles an hour. Your baby dies. Who is at fault? The mother!

    As for the planned parenthood twerp, the law is clear that there are legal protections against the unborn. Punch a woman in the stomach and her fetus dies, you can be liable for manslaughter or murder.

    1. “Who is at fault? The mother!”

      If she’s a licensed abortionist she can say “I meant to do that!”, and all will be well.

  19. The DA goes to the grand jury and they indict and the DA charges. So why the “Cop Hate” in the headline? Why not “Alabama DA charges–“?

    1. Because sometimes Reason.com is not.

  20. Some really dishonest journalism going on here. She started the fight and ought to be held accountable for getting her child killed. Also, “fertilized eggs” aren’t a thing. They’re zygotes.

    You don’t have to be pro-life, like me, to recognize how poor this piece is.

    1. They are orthogonal issues. It wasn’t a human yet, just the potential for one. Yet another attempt by a man to tell women what to do with their bodies and using disingenuous logic to try and prove an invalid point valid.

      1. “It wasn’t a human yet, just the potential for one.

        That’s your opinion. Ipse dixit.

  21. Clearly what is needed here is common sense pregnancy control.
    If Ms. Jones had been required to pay for and take courses in conception, child development, proper safety precautions during pregnancy, nutrition, and hand to hand combat, this regrettable tragedy could have been avoided. Possibly during the fingerprinting and background check she paid for, the local constabulary may have discovered prior acts that would have resulted in the pregnancy permit not being issued.

  22. “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. ”

    Nice to see Reason excusing responsibility for the altercation because “who knew the person I attacked might have a gun?”

    The US has the 2nd Amendment. Alabama is a concealed carry state.

    Not that it matters, because a violent blow or a fall could cause a miscarriage too. Who knew the person I attacked might defend themselves? Who knew there was gravity?

    The real legal problem here, naturally ignored by a Woman of Wokeness, is Vaginal Privilege.

    When *fetus bearer* kills the parasitic blobs of cells called a fetus *and calls it an abortion*, it’s a blessed sacrament of female freedom.
    When someone else attacks fetus bearer and kills her fetus, Vaginal Privilege rushes in to upgrade her blob of parasitic cells to a baby and make the attacker into a manslaughterer.

    In this case, Vaginal Privilege collides with Vaginal Privilege, as fetus bearer and the manslaughterer are one and the same person, and she forgot to say “abortion” when she leapt to the attack.

    There’s nothing shocking here. Intersectionality just didn’t get around to the oppressed class of “fetus bearer who had a miscarriage because she attacked someone else” yet.

    The Wheel of Wokeness turns slows, but never fear, it *always* veers Left.

  23. In Dixiecrat Alabammy, life begins at erection and the 14th Amendment, as locally amended, reads “All ova fertilized…”

  24. It sounds like law enforcement is using the same logic that dictates that if I and a buddy try to rob a place and my buddy gets killed in the process, I’m guilty of manslaughter/murder.

    I’ve seen several articles on this and no one’s yet talked about the details of the fight. I think it would help clear a lot of stuff up if we knew what happened between Jones pulling up to the place, and her getting a lead abortion

  25. Fuck the Republicans and their dirty war on Women’s rights. They, as a party, need to get an anal probe with a barbed wire covered baseball bat. I saw we hire Negan to conduct said experiment.

    1. You apparently missed this:

      Chuckles the Snarky Piggy
      June.27.2019 at 4:53 pm
      We were told we were crazy.

      If you continue through the link you will eventually get to this little tidbit:

      Jones, a 27-year-old black woman, is being prosecuted by the office of Lynneice Washington, the first black woman district attorney in Alabama – a Democrat. A grand jury looked at the evidence against Jones and Jemison, and decided Jones was the one who committed the crime.

      The left will eat its own. It is inevitable.

      That said, I am not certain that any legitimate public purpose is served by prosecuting this woman. I am frankly disturbed that there are people who think that the general public’s safety is threatened by allowing her to stat at liberty.

      I am also disturbed at the mindset of anyone who thinks that a scuffle with a pregnant woman constitutes a threat sufficient to justify pulling a gun and shooting her. But, hey, I wasn’t there.

      Just let them both go. More than enough public resources have been wasted on this already. I think it’s time for the authorities to go out and find some real crime to protect us all from.

      1. Thank you for the common sense on this, Kreel.❤️

  26. Tom Lehrer:

    “We’ll try to stay serene and calm
    When Alabama gets the bomb!”

    1. Tennessee state motto:

      At least we’re not Alabama

      Georgia state motto:

      At least we’re not Alabama

      Mississippi state motto:

      At least we’re not Alabama

      Florida state motto:

      At least we’re not Alabama

  27. It’s because initiating a crime like assault can more likely lead to an unexpected deadly conclusion that it can’t be compared to riding a bicycle or playing sports. Things can just get out of hand.
    Sure, Trayvon Martin didn’t expect to be shot by George Zimmerman
    when he started beating on him, but if he had stopped to think things thru instead of flying off the handle, he’d be alive today and maybe leading a productive life instead of being martyr for black lives matter.

  28. Misdemeanor manslaughter instead of felony murder?

    This makes sense unless an abortion would have been legal.

    1. Quick reference that I made for children.

      Negligent homicide is when you don’t do something you should and people die as a result.
      Manslaughter is when you want to hurt someone and kill someone by accident
      Murder 2 is when you want to kill someone, decided at the moment.
      Murder 1 is when you plan to kill someone and prepare for it.

      This would fairly clearly fall under manslaughter.
      And all homicide charges are felonies.

  29. Don’t want to get charged with crimes, don’t assault innocent people. You’d think a “libertarian” rag would understand a basic principle like non-aggression.

    1. Really, are you really this big of a self righteous prick? I honestly would not have thought that possible.

  30. This is an absolutely ridiculous article.

    Has the reporter ever heard of the “felony murder” rule? It’s not like it’s a new thing, and it describes perfectly what happened here.

    If you had changed the word “woman” in the headline to “criminal,” your clickbait would have immediately become yawnbait.

  31. well, if the claim is true that the pregnant woman, aka “victim” was the one that started the fight and continued it to the point that is escalated to her being shot, she does own some of the responsibility for this.

    I have no problem, assuming the facts are what the reports are that she started it, with her being hit with unintentional manslaughter.

    1. Yep. Somebody is dead. That somebody would otherwise not be dead except for your criminal act. That is textbook manslaughter.

      1. In nobodies mind, except the religious fanatics of Alabama is a fetus “somebody”.

        Yes, it is quite proper to charge someone who assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry with an enhanced crime but for fucks sake even if you think a woman has caused the death of her “unborn child” leave her alone with it.

        Fucking self righteous busybodies.

        1. Look, we all know the real issue here is abortion uber alles but your compatriots might not appreciate your bluntness.

          Crass.

        2. “In nobodies mind, except the religious fanatics of Alabama is a fetus “somebody”.”

          Many people, even completely irreligious people, who have experienced miscarriages will dispute your claim. I strongly suggest that, should anyone you know ever suffer a miscarriage, you keep your thoughts to yourself. It will be better for everyone.

          1. For what it’s worth, if “…anyone…[I]..know ever suffer[s] a miscarriage..” I will simply express my condolences. Which is pretty much what I would do for Marshae Jones if I ever met her and the subject came up. I would certainly not rub salt into the would by suggesting that her impulsive behavior might have been the cause of her miscarriage.

            I strongly suggest that you go fuck yourself and stop trying to pretend you have some kind of self righteous monopoly on compassion and simple human decency when you are suggesting that a young woman should be sentenced to a long prison term for a lapse in judgment.

    2. How the fuck does it feel cloaked in your mantle of righteousness?

    3. Why not leave her the fuck alone to live with whatever she is has done to deal with however she feels fit?

      How is she a “danger to society”?

      1. Other than her violent tendencies necessitating that people shoot at her?

  32. In the act of committing a violent crime her child was killed; that it was an unborn child is irrelevant. The only issue is whether that child was a person. According to the state law the child was a person. I disagree with the part of the law about a beating heart: I would say personhood begins with a functioning central nervous system at approximately the first trimester – that her guilt depends on whether her child was yet a fetus. On the other hand, laws that didn’t protect children from murder would be a greater injustice than laws that protected non-person children from death. (Death, not murder, as they are not yet people before having a CNS.)

  33. According to the state law the child was a person.

    “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass — a idiot.”

    1. So you’re making the case that children are not people: at what age do you deem in your wisdom – and supply your reasons – does killing a child become murder?

  34. Thank you, Isaac.

    Looks like the charges may have been straightforward illegal under Alabama law and prosecutors are considering not moving forward on these charges, at this point.❤️

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1600380001

    1. Yeah, if that report is accurate then the charges will be dropped.

      Reminds me of a case I was involved with in Florida. Man tells the nurse of his recently deceased wife that “he did it – he put a bag over her head.” Only this is a hospice nurse, and in Florida a hospice nurse, by law, cannot be called to testify as to the manner of death of a patient.

  35. The political security situation in Alabama is unstable, but shooting at a pregnant woman is both violent and lacking in humanity.
    http://redball5.net/

  36. Regardless on what people stance on Abortion is, if anyone should be charged for a Crime it should be the Shooter

    1. Just want to add. If the Shooting was in Self Defense, then maybe Jones should be charged with Assault. Tho in regards to the Man Slaughter with the 5 month old Fetus, a major problem is that I’m fairly certain there is no precedent and hardly anyone know what would be the legally appropriate response should be

  37. Dengan mutu dan juga kualitas yang terjamin oleh bandar judi online, maka tidak akan menyesal saat anda memilih Dewatogel ini. Di situs judi online mana saja, anda akan memeroleh prediksi togel online dengan pilihan metode berbeda.

  38. […] of the case sparked national outrage last week after a grand jury indicted Jones for manslaughter but did not indict the woman who shot her. Jones was taken into custody last Wednesday and held on […]

  39. […] of the case sparked national outrage last week after a grand jury indicted Jones for manslaughter but did not indict the woman who shot her. Jones was taken into custody last Wednesday and held on […]

  40. […] of the case sparked national outrage last week after a grand jury indicted Jones for manslaughter but did not indict the woman who shot her. Jones was taken into custody last Wednesday and held on […]

  41. […] of the case sparked national outrage last week after a grand jury indicted Jones for manslaughter but did not indict the woman who shot her. Jones was taken into custody last Wednesday and held on […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.