I understand it's the district attorney office that has the right to protect and prosecute in order to maintain order for the people they represent. I also understand why one might argue that an...
I understand it's the district attorney office that has the right to protect and prosecute in order to maintain order for the people they represent.
I also understand why one might argue that an unborn person is within this same jurisdiction.
But when you fail to prosecute the person who is directly responsible for the death of another person under your jurisdiction, your first thought should not be "well we couldn't get the real bad guy, so let's go after someone else".
What message does this send? It's okay to kill someone in a fight so long as you didn't start it? For all the failed murder charges where someone else died, should we exhume the body in order to try it in court for instigating a fight?
Yes, in the US it can be considered OK to kill someone under certain circumstances Generally we don't try and prosecute the dead, that's a sort of final punishment.
It's okay to kill someone in a fight so long as you didn't start it?
Yes, in the US it can be considered OK to kill someone under certain circumstances
For all the failed murder charges where someone else died, should we exhume the body in order to try it in court for instigating a fight?
Generally we don't try and prosecute the dead, that's a sort of final punishment.
This article seems incredibly sparse on the details, especially about the initial altercation and the other case. Why did the jury fail to indict the other person of manslaughter? That info feels...
This article seems incredibly sparse on the details, especially about the initial altercation and the other case. Why did the jury fail to indict the other person of manslaughter? That info feels like it might be pretty important here. E.g If they failed to indict due to it being a case of self-defence, i.e. the pregnant woman was attacking them with enough severity to warrant lethal force being used, then I could at least potentially see the prosecutor’s side in why the mother is now being charged for the death of their unborn child.
Don’t get me wrong, given this is happening in Alabama, I have no doubt there is some level of bullshit going on, between the racial discrimination and “pro-life” stance seemingly so prevalent down there... but I would just prefer to understand the nuances here before immediately jumping to outrage. And having googled around and read a bunch of other articles available, it doesn’t seem like anyone has any more details either. Even the NYT is incredibly sparse on them as well.
One explanation for the sparse details could be that the judge made a (quite reasonable, given the circumstances) gag order on details from the hearing. That would prevent media outlets from...
One explanation for the sparse details could be that the judge made a (quite reasonable, given the circumstances) gag order on details from the hearing. That would prevent media outlets from directly reporting on the events in the courtroom and seal up documents that might've been otherwise public (or would become public after the proceedings are complete). This sort of gag order is normally given in cases where you're worried about a tainted (biased) jury pool.
Yeah, I understand that's a possibility, but if that's the case then you have to wonder why a news organization would report on such an indictment without mentioning the previous related one has...
Yeah, I understand that's a possibility, but if that's the case then you have to wonder why a news organization would report on such an indictment without mentioning the previous related one has had a gag order placed on it... or is even the fact a grand jury decision has been gagged itself not revealed?
But if it was indeed gagged and that is public knowledge, I find it questionable that an article wouldn't mention that, was written with so few details known about the situation, and yet still chose a title clearly designed to cause outrage despite that... especially given the fact they seem to have also completely omitted the fact the shooter supposedly acted in self-defense. Outrage sells, I get that, but it seems a rather shady thing to do.
My esteem of the NYT certainly would lead me to believe they were fed the source from a feeder media outlet and didn't bother really doing more than a cursory vetting of the coverage. I doubt the...
My esteem of the NYT certainly would lead me to believe they were fed the source from a feeder media outlet and didn't bother really doing more than a cursory vetting of the coverage. I doubt the NYT had any boots on the ground to know about any gag order if one were issued. That would be a smaller media outlet's failure that then gets repeated up the chain.
In fact, I really wouldn't be surprised if this AL article is a primary source that fed into the NYT's coverage.
As for the presence of a gag order, I'm not sure off hand whether a media outlet can say something is subject to a gag order. My instinct says it depends on the jurisdiction.
Yeah, NYT likely did just source the story from al.com seeing as they even quoted the site in their slightly more objective article on the situation. But I was referring to this al.com article...
Yeah, NYT likely did just source the story from al.com seeing as they even quoted the site in their slightly more objective article on the situation. But I was referring to this al.com article being somewhat shady, not the NYT one.
this appears to be why: "Jones’ was taken into custody Wednesday in connection a 2018 Pleasant Grove shooting. Jones didn’t fire the shots that killed her unborn child and another woman,...
Why did the jury fail to indict the other person of manslaughter? That info feels like it might be pretty important here. E.g If they failed to indict due to it being a case of self-defence, i.e. the pregnant woman was attacking them with enough severity to warrant lethal force being used, then I could at least potentially see the prosecutor’s side in why the mother is now being charged for the death of their unborn child.
That doesn't really clarify things though, as all it does it state that the mother started the fight which was already known. And surely that alone can't be enough to dismiss manslaughter charges...
That doesn't really clarify things though, as all it does it state that the mother started the fight which was already known. And surely that alone can't be enough to dismiss manslaughter charges against the shooter, can it? There has to be some extenuating circumstances here, doesn't there?
p.s. Going back looking for more sources I did find this:
Jemison was initially charged with manslaughter, but the same grand jury declined to indict her after police said an investigation determined Jones started the fight, and Jemison ultimately fired the fatal shot in self-defense.
So it does looks like it was determined to be self-defense, although I am still left wondering if the altercation really warranted deadly force being used on a pregnant woman.
edit: Apparently Alabama has a "stand your ground" law with no "duty to retreat", so that may have been a factor here as well. So as long as the shooter (and grand jury) felt the mother was "attempting to commit a crime involving death [or] serious physical injury" the shooter would be considered acting in self-defense and justified in using deadly force.
I understand it's the district attorney office that has the right to protect and prosecute in order to maintain order for the people they represent.
I also understand why one might argue that an unborn person is within this same jurisdiction.
But when you fail to prosecute the person who is directly responsible for the death of another person under your jurisdiction, your first thought should not be "well we couldn't get the real bad guy, so let's go after someone else".
What message does this send? It's okay to kill someone in a fight so long as you didn't start it? For all the failed murder charges where someone else died, should we exhume the body in order to try it in court for instigating a fight?
This is fucking absurd.
Yes, in the US it can be considered OK to kill someone under certain circumstances
Generally we don't try and prosecute the dead, that's a sort of final punishment.
This article seems incredibly sparse on the details, especially about the initial altercation and the other case. Why did the jury fail to indict the other person of manslaughter? That info feels like it might be pretty important here. E.g If they failed to indict due to it being a case of self-defence, i.e. the pregnant woman was attacking them with enough severity to warrant lethal force being used, then I could at least potentially see the prosecutor’s side in why the mother is now being charged for the death of their unborn child.
Don’t get me wrong, given this is happening in Alabama, I have no doubt there is some level of bullshit going on, between the racial discrimination and “pro-life” stance seemingly so prevalent down there... but I would just prefer to understand the nuances here before immediately jumping to outrage. And having googled around and read a bunch of other articles available, it doesn’t seem like anyone has any more details either. Even the NYT is incredibly sparse on them as well.
One explanation for the sparse details could be that the judge made a (quite reasonable, given the circumstances) gag order on details from the hearing. That would prevent media outlets from directly reporting on the events in the courtroom and seal up documents that might've been otherwise public (or would become public after the proceedings are complete). This sort of gag order is normally given in cases where you're worried about a tainted (biased) jury pool.
Yeah, I understand that's a possibility, but if that's the case then you have to wonder why a news organization would report on such an indictment without mentioning the previous related one has had a gag order placed on it... or is even the fact a grand jury decision has been gagged itself not revealed?
But if it was indeed gagged and that is public knowledge, I find it questionable that an article wouldn't mention that, was written with so few details known about the situation, and yet still chose a title clearly designed to cause outrage despite that... especially given the fact they seem to have also completely omitted the fact the shooter supposedly acted in self-defense. Outrage sells, I get that, but it seems a rather shady thing to do.
My esteem of the NYT certainly would lead me to believe they were fed the source from a feeder media outlet and didn't bother really doing more than a cursory vetting of the coverage. I doubt the NYT had any boots on the ground to know about any gag order if one were issued. That would be a smaller media outlet's failure that then gets repeated up the chain.
In fact, I really wouldn't be surprised if this AL article is a primary source that fed into the NYT's coverage.
As for the presence of a gag order, I'm not sure off hand whether a media outlet can say something is subject to a gag order. My instinct says it depends on the jurisdiction.
Yeah, NYT likely did just source the story from al.com seeing as they even quoted the site in their slightly more objective article on the situation. But I was referring to this al.com article being somewhat shady, not the NYT one.
this appears to be why: "Jones’ was taken into custody Wednesday in connection a 2018 Pleasant Grove shooting. Jones didn’t fire the shots that killed her unborn child and another woman, 23-year-old Ebony Jemison, was originally charged in the case. Those charges were dropped, however, after a grand jury said Jones initiated the dispute that led to the gunfire."
That doesn't really clarify things though, as all it does it state that the mother started the fight which was already known. And surely that alone can't be enough to dismiss manslaughter charges against the shooter, can it? There has to be some extenuating circumstances here, doesn't there?
p.s. Going back looking for more sources I did find this:
https://www.wkrg.com/national/alabama-woman-charged-in-fetal-death-her-shooter-goes-free/
So it does looks like it was determined to be self-defense, although I am still left wondering if the altercation really warranted deadly force being used on a pregnant woman.
edit: Apparently Alabama has a "stand your ground" law with no "duty to retreat", so that may have been a factor here as well. So as long as the shooter (and grand jury) felt the mother was "attempting to commit a crime involving death [or] serious physical injury" the shooter would be considered acting in self-defense and justified in using deadly force.
update: charges officially dropped. here is the statement by the DA.