|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|06-28-2019 11:09 AM|
|cowboyt||Yes, I read that part, too. If she had been the aggressor, then she should've been charged with misdemeanor assault. That, I could've understood. My objection is strictly to the manslaughter charge of the fetus inside her.|
|06-28-2019 10:41 AM|
As usual, there is a little more to the story.
Note that I am not defending Alabama . . .
One account that I read was that the pregnant lady and another lady got into an altercation of some sort, and the pregnant lady was the aggressor to the point that the other lady feared for her life and fired in self defense.
"Self defense" means she won't be prosecuted, and we don't know the extent of the behavior of the pregnant lady which made the other one fear for her life.
The legal "logic" here was that if she hadn't made the other lady so fearful that she fired in self defense, the child would still be alive, and it died as a result of its own mother's actions. Essentially, they were saying she killed her own child, even if indirectly.
Convoluted, yes, and it also appears that the state may not prosecute after all.
I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on TV. I also am eternally grateful that I don't live in Alabama.
|06-28-2019 10:17 AM|
Originally Posted by 420 SE View Post
|06-28-2019 06:44 AM|
And there we go...
Alabama, stupid is as stupid does.
|06-26-2019 09:04 AM|
^^ Now that *is* an interesting analysis. I hadn't considered any of that, either, and those are questions that cannot just be dismissed.
As perhaps off-the-wall as some of the legal questions that Shemademebuyitforme has just posed may seem, we also know that lawyers can and *will* use such legalities to win their cases. One example would be the AHA defense in the Supreme Court by the Obama Administration. Right after then-Speaker Pelosi said, "it's not a tax", the Administration's case hinged entirely on it being just that, a tax, which the Congress *does* have the Constitutional authority to do. The Administration won that case for that reason.
So, simply dismissing certain legal questions as, "off-the-wall", or "totally unusual", or "would never happen", I wouldn't go there, because that's an attorney's job--to go there--if the attorney thinks it'll help win the case.
Thoughts on these questions?
|06-26-2019 07:49 AM|
Originally Posted by 420 SE View Post
That's the FIRST original comment I've seen on this subject, and it is valuable because it takes the discussion in a totally different direction, away from heat, steam and rhetoric and into the practicality and legalities of the real world.
Situation - mother dies in childbirth, can the husband have the child charged with involuntary (wo)manslaughter even if it is his child? Could the state lay the charges? Could the father get charged with contributory negligence? Wife The Lawyer thought about this a few moments and said yes to all . . .
I see 420 SE is from OZ so US law is going to be different, but since both are (more or less) based on English law, there will be significant parallels.
Then we run into the "All men are created equal" bit. It doesn't say men only and specifically not women. It also doesn't define the time of "creation" - is it conception, birth, or some time in between (and specifically when)?
I think the old Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times" is operating quite well right now. There's also an old Jewish curse "May your life be full of lawyers" which adds to these festivities.
Gotta tell ya, I am SO glad my life is (comparatively) simple . . .
(Simple: plug in Star diagnostics, read code, write check, replace problem part, repeat as needed next time. Not simple: politics, this thread, more. I wish we had a code reader for governments: plug in reader, read code, remove problem officials (jail or perhaps something more permanent), repeat as needed next time.)
|06-26-2019 02:33 AM|
|06-26-2019 01:01 AM|
Originally Posted by Shane View Post
|06-25-2019 09:25 PM|
|Shane||Think I stepped on an ant today. Let’s get all riled up about that too.|
|06-25-2019 08:48 PM|
Be very careful of ascribing 'rights' to the unborn - there would be a lot of unintended consequence.
That the law has used 'birth' as a starting point for rights is bound in much more than abortion. You open the door to issues of succession, property, harm (assault, murder/manslaughter) etc when you give person rights.
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|