Trump.....

[Zaf]

Yesterday ypu were very certain of guilt, not the possibility of guilt at trial. Now you have danced a little side step and Realigned yourself and continue with the same level of authoritative not quite tjere as before. This is a common practice of yours.

EDIT: I have discarded the previous post in full and made it more respectful.
I hope this states the case quite clearly, and I apologise for the tone and content of the reply prior to this edit if it was seen or preserved in quotations after this point. It was not coming from a good place, and did not further the discussion.


You need to show me exactly where you think I've side stepped, so I can answer that as part of the dialogue.
I believe the misunderstanding has come from us commenting on different aspects of the law and from different perspectives and levels of knowledge with how it works, which is leading to you thinking I have made assertions that I do not believe I have.

The only reason she is not guilty is because of an assumption of innocence.
The District Attorney can use their prosecutorial discretion to decide to try a case or not, but this can also be overturned as part of Judicial Review. We saw this exact process with the Zimmerman trial, where the original DA felt it was a clear self defence shooting and was not going to ever take it to trial. There are also a multitude of reasons for a DA to choose not to try a case, especially one criminal in nature and the burden of evidence required to secure a conviction. You can be guilty of a crime, but the evidence is not enough to prove your guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, so no prosecution will ever occur.

Jones was criminally negligent and it is entirely her fault her child is now dead. Jemison was attacked without provocation, she followed her duty to retreat and deescalate, and when she could retreat no further, responded by defending herself. If it were not for the actions of Jones instigating and then pressing the attack, none of this would have come to pass. The issued indictment is completely in line with the the criminal code of the district.
The law is not unclear on this, your opinion of what is just might be.

I do not believe I have made a statement on what I think is just

I have explained quite clearly why the case was interesting from a constitutional point of view. I might also add that the DA not choosing to prosecute doesn't make that law any less in violation of the Constitutional precedent that has already been set...you can read my previous posts for more information on that.

 

[Tubbsy]

Argue in a robust manner, you'll get some robust responses. No need to get angry.


Anyway...

(2) HOMICIDE.  A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence causes the death of another person.

I do not see Marshae as unambiguously guilty under that law.

She may be unambiguously guilty of starting the fight, but it does not automatically follow that she is therefore unambiguously guilty of the death of her child.

I also do not agree that the other party would have definitely dispensed the same level of violence in defending herself regardless of the tools available. It's quite possible that if she'd had no weapons that the child would have lived. Five bullets, even if they are as ineffective as described in an earlier post, are still more likely to inflict serious injury than five punches.

So I also dispute that the gun is largely irrelevant in the outcome.

 

[stirk]

So I also dispute that the gun is largely irrelevant in the outcome.

The gun enabled the outcome in this case and are therefore bound. Did someone say otherwise?

 

[pink poodle]

EDIT: I have discarded the previous post in full and made it more respectful.
I hope this states the case quite clearly, and I apologise for the tone and content of the reply prior to this edit if it was seen or preserved in quotations after this point. It was not coming from a good place, and did not further the discussion.


You need to show me exactly where you think I've side stepped, so I can answer that as part of the dialogue.
I believe the misunderstanding has come from us commenting on different aspects of the law and from different perspectives and levels of knowledge with how it works, which is leading to you thinking I have made assertions that I do not believe I have.

The only reason she is not guilty is because of an assumption of innocence.
The District Attorney can use their prosecutorial discretion to decide to try a case or not, but this can also be overturned as part of Judicial Review. We saw this exact process with the Zimmerman trial, where the original DA felt it was a clear self defence shooting and was not going to ever take it to trial. There are also a multitude of reasons for a DA to choose not to try a case, especially one criminal in nature and the burden of evidence required to secure a conviction. You can be guilty of a crime, but the evidence is not enough to prove your guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, so no prosecution will ever occur.

Jones was criminally negligent and it is entirely her fault her child is now dead. Jemison was attacked without provocation, she followed her duty to retreat and deescalate, and when she could retreat no further, responded by defending herself. If it were not for the actions of Jones instigating and then pressing the attack, none of this would have come to pass. The issued indictment is completely in line with the the criminal code of the district.
The law is not unclear on this, your opinion of what is just might be.

I do not believe I have made a statement on what I think is just

I have explained quite clearly why the case was interesting from a constitutional point of view. I might also add that the DA not choosing to prosecute doesn't make that law any less in violation of the Constitutional precedent that has already been set...you can read my previous posts for more information on that.

Well now I do feel like I missed something. I love a good @Zaf tantrum. So few can deliver with even a shadow of such vigour.

I don't need to show you anything. You can review your own posts and see it quite clearly. Though perhaps you can't, it does often appear in your repertoire to view broadly. But yesterday you repeatedly asserted that only one view was true and accurate (that which you held with apparent special wisdom not available to the rest of us). Today that's different...but apparently what always was. Like a cliche of maga.

You've done it again in this (edited) post.

 

[Zaf]

I do not see Marshae as unambiguously guilty under that law.

Dude...read ONE line up under "Criminal Homicide". Then read what constitutes a "PERSON" under the same section of the act.
It shouldn't be hard, it was bolded out to make it really easy for you.

She may be unambiguously guilty of starting the fight, but it does not automatically follow that she is therefore unambiguously guilty of the death of her child.

It is completely unambiguous on that matter too. It's called Felony Murder.

(a) A person commits the crime of murder if he or she does any of the following:
(1) With intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes the death of that person or of another person.
(2) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he or she recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person other than himself or herself, and thereby causes the death of another person.
(3) He or she commits or attempts to commit arson in the first degree, burglary in the first or second degree, escape in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree, robbery in any degree, sodomy in the first degree, aggravated child abuse under Section 26-15-3.1 , or any other felony clearly dangerous to human life and, in the course of and in furtherance of the crime that he or she is committing or attempting to commit, or in immediate flight therefrom, he or she, or another participant if there be any, causes the death of any person.
(4) He or she commits the crime of arson and a qualified governmental or volunteer firefighter or other public safety officer dies while performing his or her duty resulting from the arson.
(b) A person does not commit murder under subdivisions (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section if he or she was moved to act by a sudden heat of passion caused by provocation recognized by law, and before there had been a reasonable time for the passion to cool and for reason to reassert itself.  The burden of injecting the issue of killing under legal provocation is on the defendant, but this does not shift the burden of proof.  This subsection does not apply to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter or other crime.
(c) Murder is a Class A felony;  provided, that the punishment for murder or any offense committed under aggravated circumstances by a person 18 years of age or older, as provided by Article 2 of Chapter 5 of this title, is death or life imprisonment without parole, which punishment shall be determined and fixed as provided by Article 2 of Chapter 5 of this title or any amendments thereto.  The punishment for murder or any offense committed under aggravated circumstances by a person under the age of 18 years, as provided by Article 2 of Chapter 5, is either life imprisonment without parole, or life, which punishment shall be determined and fixed as provided by Article 2 of Chapter 5 of this title or any amendments thereto and the applicable Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure.
If the defendant is sentenced to life on a capital offense, the defendant must serve a minimum of 30 years, day for day, prior to first consideration of parole.

Is that a felony?
Well yes, assault in the first degree.

Assault in the First Degree
A person commits assault in the first degree, classified as a Class B felony, in any of the five ways discussed below:

• by intending to and causing serious physical injury to another person with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument
• by causing an injury to a person, and possessing the intent to either disfigure another person seriously and permanently; or destroy, amputate, or permanently disable a member or organ of the person’s body
• by recklessly engaging in conduct that creates a grave risk of death to another, and the conduct also causes serious physical injury to a person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life
• by causing serious physical injury to another while engaging in a felony clearly dangerous to human life (or during flight immediately after engaging in the felony); or while committing any of the following felonies: arson or attempted arson in the first degree, burglary in the first or second degree, escape in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree, robbery in any degree, or sodomy in the first degree, or
• by causing serious bodily injury to another person with a motor vehicle, while driving under the influence of alcohol, a controlled substance, or a combination of the two.

Shall I keep going?

I don't need to show you anything. You can review your own posts and see it quite clearly.

I am clearly unable to make such an assessment. I was making a plea for you not only to back up the assertions you're making, but make it clear to me where I have not been clear on my argument so that I can correct it. It was in the vain hope you might want to actually engage in the discussion, and not just bait responses and then withdraw.

The gun enabled the outcome in this case and are therefore bound. Did someone say otherwise?

I said otherwise, but it's been taken out of context. It was part of changing inconsequential parts of the story to help better demonstrate the different parts of the law that were being enacted and why. The paraphrased version is that the charge still holds if Jemison were defending herself with anything else and it resulted in the death of Jones' child, that under Felony Murder charges it is still Jones that is responsible and prosecutable for that death.
Ergo if the method employed has no effect on the outcome, it is inconsequential in the context of the charges involved.

 

[Tubbsy]

It shouldn't be hard, it was bolded out to make it really easy for you.

Thanks for the formatting and for being patronising about it.

However she is still not unambiguously guilty of the charges.

 

[Zaf]

Thanks for the formatting and for being patronising about it.

However she is still not unambiguously guilty of the charges.

I'm sorry, how many times do you think I should have to highlight a clearly demonstrated point before it is reasonable to be patronising?

As for the second point, how about you fucking EXPLAIN YOURSELF instead of just constantly making assertions without any reason or basis for someone to follow?!
FFS guys, this is completely onesided bullshit of you throwing out opinion after opinion and somehow I have to keep showing you why it's wrong before you discard it?! If you want to make a point, you make it and explain yourself so we can actually have a fucking discussion on the nuances and circumstances surrounding it.

At least when I say something I give reasoning so even if you disagree with me, you can see how I arrived at the conclusion I did. It's clearly a bit too much to ask for at least a sliver of that kind of respect to be returned in your responses. But no...i'm the one being patronising. Do you have ANY FUCKING IDEA HOW ALL YOURS POSTS READ?! You are at such levels of arrogance you don't even feel the need to justify your opinions, you state them as so plainly evident they need no justification whatsoever. You arrogant fucking cunts, you can't even provide examples (when asked) of indescrecions you're so happy to point out in the first place.

There you go poodle, there's your Zaf rant, I hope you're all really fucking proud of yourselves.

 

[hifiandmtb]

More times.

 

[Tubbsy]

Bigger font maybe.

 

[pink poodle]

Shit! Edited again before I got to see it. I am disappointed, more in my mobile provider than @Zaf. Their coverage is really patchy some times.

I see someone did spell it out for you in really simple English, without being patronising I might add, and still is apparently wrong. You've got a special case of being cock eyed on this @Zaf. I know how it feels to be so damn sure I'm right and nobody understands, it is quite frustrating.

 

[pink poodle]

Shit! Edited again before I got to see it. I am disappointed, more in my mobile provider than @Zaf. Their coverage is really patchy some times.

I see someone did spell it out for you in really simple English, without being patronising I might add, and still is apparently wrong. You've got a special case of being cock eyed on this @Zaf. I know how it feels to be so damn sure I'm right and nobody understands, it is quite frustrating.

 

[Zaf]

I see someone did spell it out for you in really simple English, without being patronising I might add, and still is apparently wrong.

And it was easier to write that than just copy paste this eloquent and well reasoned argument? Go fuck yourself.

 

[pink poodle]

And it was easier to write that than just copy paste this eloquent and well reasoned argument? Go fuck yourself.

If you didn't read it the first time, why would you read it the second time? It doesn't align with your position, so it should be disregarded and derided as foolishness. It's an amazing gift @Zaf, are you able to teach it?

 

[Tubbsy]

Do you have ANY FUCKING IDEA HOW ALL YOURS POSTS READ?! You are at such levels of arrogance you don't even feel the need to justify your opinions, you state them as so plainly evident they need no justification whatsoever. You arrogant fucking cunts, you can't even provide examples (when asked) of indescrecions you're so happy to point out in the first place.

Dude WTF.

I was arguing that your interpretation of the law you posted was incorrect, I didn’t need to re-quote it to make my point.

We can do without the personal comments.

 

[pink poodle]

Dude WTF.

I was arguing that your interpretation of the law you posted was incorrect, I didn’t need to re-quote it to make my point.

We can do without the personal comments.

I think @Zaf has earnt the right after patiently dealing with us dullards...

 

[Haakon]

There you go poodle, there's your Zaf rant, I hope you're all really fucking proud of yourselves.

Somewhat bemused I think is a better term...

I think i get your point - you're saying the law can be interpreted to charge her or let her go, depending on the mood of the prosecutor? So both outcomes are "technically" legally correct?

Either way, I think that she was charged is fucked up. I also dont discount the gun, but then again I'm a lefty snowflake who thinks no one has a "right" to carry around a lethal fucking weapon (with apologies to Mel Gibson..).

 

[safreek]

Have to say, I agree with Zaf. The woman started a fight, was a nasty little bitch with no regard to her unborn child. She endangered someone to the extent that they felt the need to use a gun to protect themselves. Because of her felonious aggression she caused the death of her unborn child, a completely different human.
If someone got in an argument with her, kicked her in the stomach, killed the baby, well I guess you would all think it was a fair police charge. I don't find it unreasonable to see her in the same light.
All drunk drivers that kill people should be charged with murder as well, no manslaughter or culpable driving

 

[Zaf]

Dude WTF.

I was arguing that your interpretation of the law you posted was incorrect, I didn’t need to re-quote it to make my point.

We can do without the personal comments.

No, you cherry picked part of my quote at the expense of the part that gave context to the law that justified her indictment. Ignorance of the law is not a valid defence, it's even worse when someone has expressly drawn the relevant section to your attention and you still fail to take notice of it.

Somewhat bemused I think is a better term...

I think i get your point - you're saying the law can be interpreted to charge her or let her go, depending on the mood of the prosecutor? So both outcomes are "technically" legally correct?

Either way, I think that she was charged is fucked up. I also dont discount the gun, but then again I'm a lefty snowflake who thinks no one has a "right" to carry around a lethal fucking weapon (with apologies to Mel Gibson..).

No, the law was quite clear which is why the Grand Jury issued the indictment as part of Jemison's sentence. Likewise, the law is quite clear on prosecutorial discretion. They are CHOOSING not to try the case because of extenuating circumstances, that is very different from the indictment being invalid because of incorrect interpretation of the law. The article you guys linked even has the DA saying that the Grand Jury was NOT INCORRECT IN ISSUING THE INDICTMENT. Do you even follow your own sources?! Jesus christ.

 

[Tubbsy]

Ignorance of the law is not a valid defence, it's even worse when someone has expressly drawn the relevant section to your attention and you still fail to take notice of it.

On that we can agree.

 

[Haakon]

No, you cherry picked part of my quote at the expense of the part that gave context to the law that justified her indictment. Ignorance of the law is not a valid defence, it's even worse when someone has expressly drawn the relevant section to your attention and you still fail to take notice of it.


No, the law was quite clear which is why the Grand Jury issued the indictment as part of Jemison's sentence. Likewise, the law is quite clear on prosecutorial discretion. They are CHOOSING not to try the case because of extenuating circumstances, that is very different from the indictment being invalid because of incorrect interpretation of the law. The article you guys linked even has the DA saying that the Grand Jury was NOT INCORRECT IN ISSUING THE INDICTMENT. Do you even follow your own sources?! Jesus christ.

Ok... That was a genuinely conciliatory response, sorry I misunderstood.