A pregnant woman was shot in the stomach. She was charged in her unborn child’s death.


Bug-Creator

macrumors 6502a
May 30, 2011
549
2,129
Germany
It is completely ridiculous. No question bout that.

So 2 women got in fight, one pregnant the other not.

The not pregnant one pulled a gun, she obviously had no clue how to handle and things went south.

Lots of things that could be learned from this (but won't...), lots of things that need changing (also won't).
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
659
11,958
Rock Ridge, California
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/27/pregnant-woman-was-shot-stomach-she-was-indicted-her-babys-death/?utm_term=.0d67a88c014b


My initial reaction was .... this is completely ridiculous.

But after reading the story, my feeling about this changes. That's if the story is actual true. If the story is 100% true, then I'm still conflicted at the charges, but don't think it's completely ridiculous.
Yeah, that story has been floating about all week, and I hesitated posting it. I had enough internal conflicts with the situation, I didn't really want to invite the usual buffoonery to add nothing to a discussion. There's just so much wrong on every level of that situation, I have no idea what to rationally think about it.

With everything else being equal, I have a feeling that outcome would have been different if the pregnant woman was White.
In this case, in Alabama, I think this time race plays a smaller factor. This time it's because it's a woman period & the whole charged atmosphere with the abortion debate. This is someone's chance to hammer home the message & importance of an unborn child over a woman. All the other factors involved in the situation provide great cover to push that message over everything else.
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
659
11,958
Rock Ridge, California
That isn't the direct issue though.

The issue is in indicting the mother for placing the unborn child in danger, but NOT the actual person who shot the child. That's kind of a murky selective position to take. To remove responsibility for the shooting, from the shooter herself, in a situation you know if the baby wasn't involved, they would throw the book at both involved. I imagine the woman who used a firearm in this position, is probably thinking she escaped from the Twilight Zone. She ( I am assuming ) is a Black woman who shot another woman killing the baby, and a grand jury decided NOT to indict her. If I was that woman, I'd be buying lottery tickets, because no other Black woman in Alabama is probably EVER going to be that fortunate again.
 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,327
10,227
Scotland
Oh for god's sake - it was an unborn fetus. A child, by definition, has been born already. This fetus was never born. :(

Anybody who has argued recently that the laws against abortion in the South and Midwest are not motivated by a desire to degrade women should mull this ridiculous indictment over. But hey, the woman who shot and killed the fetus was exercising 2A rights, so that's OK, right? :confused: What a bunch of b****** crazy nonsense. At least it reveals Alabama's priorities.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Original poster
Oct 27, 2009
7,431
8,596
It is completely ridiculous. No question bout that.

So 2 women got in fight, one pregnant the other not.

The not pregnant one pulled a gun, she obviously had no clue how to handle and things went south.

Lots of things that could be learned from this (but won't...), lots of things that need changing (also won't).

This is why my opinion is based on "if" the story is actually true. Cause based on the story, it was the pregnant women that jumped out the car and started to rush at the other women.

I don't believe in the "stand your ground" mentality over what you fear could possibility happen. But when it's completely proven that someone is trying to hurt you, then anything is fair game. Warning shot or not, that women had every right to fire her weapon at the pregnant women.

The charges have me conflicted. But I'm NOT conflicted over the pregnant women's stupidity and violent nature. She put herself and her unborn in a violent situation.
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
659
11,958
Rock Ridge, California
This is why my opinion is based on "if" the story is actually true. Cause based on the story, it was the pregnant women that jumped out the car and started to rush at the other women.

I don't believe in the "stand your ground" mentality over what you fear could possibility happen. But when it's completely proven that someone is trying to hurt you, then anything is fair game. Warning shot or not, that women had every right to fire her weapon at the pregnant women.

The charges have me conflicted. But I'm NOT conflicted over the pregnant women's stupidity and violent nature. She put herself and her unborn in a violent situation.
My impression is that an argument ensued, and it just escalated with the other woman pulling out a gun and shooting the first. If you remove the baby, this sounds so cut & dry. You can already hear the 'play stupid games' crowd saying the other got what she deserved. In other times if you hear it was just two Black people, we'd get the 'thugs' speech or Black on Black crime screed, and both women deserve to get locked up.

Add in the baby though, in Alabama, and $#!:mad: gets weird.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,327
10,227
Scotland
...
The charges have me conflicted. But I'm NOT conflicted over the pregnant women's stupidity and violent nature. She put herself and her unborn in a violent situation.
The woman who shot the fetus retrieved her gun from her purse. It was concealed, so it is a little hard to argue that the charged woman knew she risked being shot. And this story about firing a warning shot could be nonsense. No doubt the shooter was angry too and didn't seem to evaluate the risk to the fetus (assuming it was a fetus rather than an embryo, which might not even show). Frankly, this is the most moronic legal action I have ever heard of.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,667
1,738
That isn't the direct issue though.

The issue is in indicting the mother for placing the unborn child in danger, but NOT the actual person who shot the child. That's kind of a murky selective position to take. To remove responsibility for the shooting, from the shooter herself, in a situation you know if the baby wasn't involved, they would throw the book at both involved. I imagine the woman who used a firearm in this position, is probably thinking she escaped from the Twilight Zone. She ( I am assuming ) is a Black woman who shot another woman killing the baby, and a grand jury decided NOT to indict her. If I was that woman, I'd be buying lottery tickets, because no other Black woman in Alabama is probably EVER going to be that fortunate again.
Reporting on this consistently suggests that she assaulted the other woman. If the shooting was in self defense, then the other woman shouldn't be liable.

A number of states also indict if a pregnant woman miscarries a fetus due to any kind of violence from another person. In that context, they indict as if the fetus is any other person. Having it happen to the pregnant woman just seems like a side effect of those kinds of law. Other reporting hasn't been as kind to her.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/pregnant-woman-shot-marshae-jones.html

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2018/12/woman-charged-in-pleasant-grove-shooting-that-killed-unborn-baby-girl.html

NY Times refers back to al.

Pleasant Grove police on Thursday announced the charge against 23-year-old Ebony Jemison. Though police said they initially planned to charge her with murder, Lt. Danny Reid said they amended the charge to manslaughter.

“The investigation showed that the only true victim in this was the unborn baby,’’ Reid said. “It was the mother of the child who initiated and continued the fight which resulted in the death of her own unborn baby.”
Assuming this isn't a particularly biased portrayal of the events, which is a significant assumption in itself, I'm not sure how you would hold the other person accountable for this.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Original poster
Oct 27, 2009
7,431
8,596
The woman who shot the fetus retrieved her gun from her purse. It was concealed, so it is a little hard to argue that the charged woman knew she risked being shot. And this story about firing a warning shot could be nonsense. No doubt the shooter was angry too and didn't seem to evaluate the risk to the fetus (assuming it was a fetus rather than an embryo, which might not even show). Frankly, this is the most moronic legal action I have ever heard of.

This is the major problem .......

Things boiled over on the afternoon of Dec. 4, when she says Jones, who was driving with friends at the time, spotted Ebony and leaped out of the vehicle to attack her. Jones’s friends left the car soon afterward and began to move toward the scuffle, she claimed.

“Ebony was afraid for her life and reached in her purse for the gun,” Earka Jemison said, adding her daughter had a license to carry. “She tried to fire a warning shot to get away from her.”

Hence why it's a manslaughter charge. Doesn't matter if she knew she was going to get shot or not. What matters is, she went out of her way to try to cause harm to someone else. Regardless of any disdain both have for each other, it's the pregnant women that initiated the act of aggression.
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
659
11,958
Rock Ridge, California
Reporting on this consistently suggests that she assaulted the other woman. If the shooting was in self defense, then the other woman shouldn't be liable.

A number of states also indict if a pregnant woman miscarries a fetus due to any kind of violence from another person. In that context, they indict as if the fetus is any other person. Having it happen to the pregnant woman just seems like a side effect of those kinds of law. Other reporting hasn't been as kind to her.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/pregnant-woman-shot-marshae-jones.html

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2018/12/woman-charged-in-pleasant-grove-shooting-that-killed-unborn-baby-girl.html

NY Times refers back to al.



Assuming this isn't a particularly biased portrayal of the events, which is a significant assumption in itself, I'm not sure how you would hold the other person accountable for this.
That wasn't in doubt or argued. No one has said the pregnant woman didn't start the fight. What's interesting is that at no point has anyone said if the other woman was justified in using the gun. We just went from fight, to gun, to unborn child no more, mother charged. In other words, if the baby isn't involved, does the conversation change to 'stand your ground'? If the unborn child is removed and the woman just shot the other woman, it seems like a normal both "go to jail, do not collect..."

The unborn child is involved, suddenly the mother is indicted, and the other woman seems to go free.

It's the addition of the unborn child that seems to turn a 'normal' situation on it's head, which raises questions.

Also the officer's remark about the unborn child, seems to have gotten it's fair share of attention. With a few commenters seeing as it demonstrates the real concern in the whole situation, not the women themselves.

As I said, it's too convoluted for me to process fully without a degree of emotion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,327
10,227
Scotland
If they want to charge the pregnant woman with assault, I could see the logic in that (if indeed she did assault the other woman). However, legally charging her for the loss of the fetus is mean-spirited and evil, and so is simply passing judgment on the pregnant woman for being shot. Even the woman who fired the gun apparently did not see the situation as being so potentially dangerous that she was aiming at the pregnant woman, instead choosing to fire a 'warning shot' that ricocheted. Had there been an serious imminent threat, that bullet would been intentionally aimed at the pregnant woman. Moreover, this charge is predicated on a law that equates all embryos and fetuses as having exactly that same moral standing, not matter whether their biology has developed sufficiently to support sentience. This is a bad decision based on an even worse law.
 

bambooshots

Suspended
Jul 25, 2013
1,414
2,870
/s How can she be charged with the child's death? It's just a clump of cells until the child is born and the parents decide they want the baby. /s
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe

lostngone

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2003
1,340
2,825
Anchorage
/s How can she be charged with the child's death? It's just a clump of cells until the child is born and the parents decide they want the baby. /s
Future death. Once the new anti-masturbation laws are past 98% of all men in the U.S. with be charged with genocide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR

A.Goldberg

macrumors 68020
Jan 31, 2015
2,325
7,637
Boston
Definitely a complicated issue, though I’d probably lean towards not charging her.

Apparently the mother instigated and perpetuated the fight leading to the other woman using her gun in alleged self defense. I suppose you could argue the mothers actions put the fetus in unnecessary danger that resulted in death.

I suppose in some ways it’s like if someone was a passenger in car that got killed because of the driver was driving recklessly. Presumably the drivers negligence resulted in the persons death. But it’s a little bit of a stretch when a 3rd party was the one who shot the gun.
 

GermanSuplex

macrumors 6502a
Aug 26, 2009
959
9,878
Working their way back to the 1800's, if they ever even moved on.

If the people of Alabama let stuff like this fly, they better be careful or they may find themselves on the end of some loony Christian-conservative nonsense. I wonder how a pro-life conservative woman will feel if she cheats on her spouse and is court-ordered to wear a scarlet letter.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Original poster
Oct 27, 2009
7,431
8,596
The not pregnant one pulled a gun, she obviously had no clue how to handle and things went south.

This is another topic in itself. I would have no issue if she purposely shot the pregnant women out of self defense. But a warning shot out of self defense, means you didn't intend to shot anyone but still managed to injury and/or kill somebody. They could probably charge her with manslaughter of an unborn as well, and assault with a firearm. Maybe I fail to understand ... but I don't think you can say "I didn't mean to shoot nobody", but end up shooting somebody anyways.

Also, she could get charged with some type of reckless endangerment law, since she could have hurt someone else with that warning shot.

People think a warning shot is the more passive or sympathetic way of defending yourself, but it can put others in danger, and makes things harder for you legally. I myself don't believe in any warning shots, if I pull the trigger, it's cause I'm aiming at a threat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,667
1,738
That wasn't in doubt or argued. No one has said the pregnant woman didn't start the fight. What's interesting is that at no point has anyone said if the other woman was justified in using the gun. We just went from fight, to gun, to unborn child no more, mother charged. In other words, if the baby isn't involved, does the conversation change to 'stand your ground'? If the unborn child is removed and the woman just shot the other woman, it seems like a normal both "go to jail, do not collect..."
I'm wondering about that myself. Usually when it comes to self defense, there's an issue of proportionality. If that was a valid means of self defense in this case, then she did nothing wrong. The comment I quoted made it sound like the other woman couldn't have simply retreated from this fight. It's ridiculous to escalate something to the use of firearms whenever that's an obvious and viable option, so I don't see how 'stand your ground' enters into this.

I did look for a detailed report before quoting that. I didn't find anything. I suspect if it wasn't regarded as self defense, she would have been charged. The fact that one woman was pregnant should be irrelevant to whether the other acted in self defense.

As I mentioned though, a lot of states have laws that allow them to charge anyone who harms a fetus. These aren't really questioned so much when it comes to assaults against pregnant women, regardless of whether intent is actually there. This seems in part like a side effect of having that kind of law, although I doubt it's often used this way.