Trump.....

Tubbsy

Party Pooper
Staff member
To state it clearly, there's an unquestioned aggravated assault underlying all of this.
Yeah I know. Have stated the same above.

Not sure if that makes her explicitly culpable in the death of her child. That's what the case will determine.

My point remains the same: with a different background and better legal representation, she might well escape that conviction.

I'm no lawyer though, so as you say
Guess we'll see.
 

Zaf

Gearbox Frother
Not sure if that makes her explicitly culpable in the death of her child.
It does. Even from an ethical argument, she's responsible. If she had not behaved the way she had, her child would still be with her.
Jemison has been cleared of any wrong doing on the matter, in fact it was in her clearance of wrongdoing that the new charges were filed on Jones.
The question isn't if she's responsible, it's how far the consequences are going to reach because of it. And depending on the precedent set, it could range from Felony Murder or Manslaughter to aggravated assault resulting in a negligent death.
 

Tubbsy

Party Pooper
Staff member
You may be right. Seems a stretch to me, but maybe in Alabama it is assumed that anybody you get into a confrontation with will have a gun and therefore you had to know what was coming.

I don't have all the facts and I'm not a lawyer so this is all speculation on my part.
 

Zaf

Gearbox Frother
You may be right. Seems a stretch to me, but maybe in Alabama it is assumed that anybody you get into a confrontation with will have a gun and therefore you had to know what was coming.

I don't have all the facts and I'm not a lawyer so this is all speculation on my part.
The carrying of a firearm has little to no bearing on how this plays out. If you replace it with any other defensive force that resulted in the death of the child, the outcome is the same. It has been ruled no wrongdoing in the shooting, it was justifiable in the the eyes of the law, it is assumed that she acted appropriately given the circumstances.
Sort of like what happened with Schwartz and Soper in Sydney earlier this year, if you want a a more local example of a justifiable homicide.

The firearm is literally the least interesting thing in this entire case, and the most cut and dry part of it. It's the supreme court precedent on the new abortion laws that is the big ticket item in all this.
 

Haakon

veni, vidi, volanti
Regardless... bible belt law, whether it is to do with guns or abortion... is hardly the precedent for us, or any other sane nation for that matter, to base our own laws on.
Which is why I get bothered when Australians try to defend this shit show....
 

rowdyflat

chez le médecin
Another only in America truth is stranger than fiction episode.
Defendant is black, state is right wing bible belt Alabama ruled by white men who are anti abortion.
Zaf is very definite in his opinion but I think there are nuances to this. ie she didnt actually shoot the foetus.
A white woman with expensive lawyers probably wouldnt even be charged.
 

wkkie

Eats Squid
It does. Even from an ethical argument, she's responsible. If she had not behaved the way she had, her child would still be with her.
Jemison has been cleared of any wrong doing on the matter, in fact it was in her clearance of wrongdoing that the new charges were filed on Jones.
The question isn't if she's responsible, it's how far the consequences are going to reach because of it. And depending on the precedent set, it could range from Felony Murder or Manslaughter to aggravated assault resulting in a negligent death.
Just because she been cleared, doesn't make it ethically right, as you say, to shoot someone 5 times! Handgun or not.

Handguns can be plenty lethal depending on calibre and type of round used... Even a .22 can kill with 1 round...
 

Ultra Lord

Beanie Fitment Specialist
Just because she been cleared, doesn't make it ethically right, as you say, to shoot someone 5 times! Handgun or not.

Handguns can be plenty lethal depending on calibre and type of round used... Even a .22 can kill with 1 round...View attachment 354194
No mate, you just need to spend some time on gore sites. Then you’ll understand. Go watch some mexican cartels execute people, it’s the only way to wrap your head around this whole thing.
 

Zaf

Gearbox Frother
Another only in America truth is stranger than fiction episode.
Defendant is black, state is right wing bible belt Alabama ruled by white men who are anti abortion.
Zaf is very definite in his opinion but I think there are nuances to this. ie she didnt actually shoot the foetus.
A white woman with expensive lawyers probably wouldnt even be charged.
A white woman with expensive lawyers don't generally get into physical altercations that necessitate the use of one. I thought, you being a doctor and all, you'd would know all about prevention being a lot better than a solution.

Just because she been cleared, doesn't make it ethically right, as you say, to shoot someone 5 times! Handgun or not.

Handguns can be plenty lethal depending on calibre and type of round used... Even a .22 can kill with 1 round...
Fuck me dead...let me re-phrase it so as to make it a little clearer for you.
Compared to a long arm, pistols have poor lethality. The bullet grain is big, and it only has a short barrel to accelerate out of, which limits the wound vector to a great degree. You will find most personal carry weapons fall back to 9mm for this exact reason; you can get a double stack magazine in a small form factor so that you can make up with volume what you lack in hitting power. Also snaps a lot less than a 10mm or a .40, and doesn't have the form factor issues of a .45; it is more easily controlled and concealed.

Almost every army in the world fires a .22 calibre bullet out of their main battle rifle. We're all acutely aware that ANY bullet can be lethal with the right placement, which I said the first time. Usually goes, center mass, fire until threat is eliminated. You don't brandish or fire warning shots, if you had to draw the weapon you are within reasonable fear of your life and you should be using it to shrewd effect.

@Zaf, this isn’t 4chan, you realise?
You're kidding me?! You mean this isn't an anonymous anime imageboard!? I never make that mistake, so you can see how this would be mighty embarrassing for me.
You need some new content with your insults though. This whole "he doesn't agree with me, he must be from 4chan" is getting a little overused.

No mate, you just need to spend some time on gore sites. Then you’ll understand. Go watch some mexican cartels execute people, it’s the only way to wrap your head around this whole thing.
The point was more to make out that there is a significant difference in movies (the only exposure most people have to firearms) and reality. It's not as simple as putting a bullet in someone and they go down.

Well done to everyone though! You've all managed to turn a discussion about draconian abortion laws and the case that might very well have a huge impact on them, into a circle-jerk about how you all hate guns...a detail you've already represented super clearly, at almost every opportunity and in large volume all over the forum already.
 
Last edited:

Ultra Lord

Beanie Fitment Specialist
That's why I carry a mace.
Gonna get medieval on them.

@Zaf
No we didn’t. Stop the “everyone hates guns and is ganging up on me” victim bullshit. I don’t hate guns. Not once did I say it was the guns fault. My whole point has been that it’s a shocking event, and the absurdity of it all should and does elicit a emotional response to it. From what you’ve posted, it seems you think everything is fine in that situation, and anybody quetioning the legal preceedings following it shouldn’t be nor should we discuss the morality behind them.
 
Top