And that's not starting and escalating? She's not convicted yet, so maybe it turns out to not be true, but based on the story so far, assuming it's true, it's her own fault. Seeing the shooter isn't convicted, chances are pretty high that the rest of the story checks out to. Also, this is a very weird thing to do when you're 5 months pregnant and shot in the stomach: "Police and paramedics then found the Jones at a Fairfield convenience store." Why go to a hospital, right?
Source: https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2...dismissed.html
“It was the mother of the child who initiated and continued the fight (...)"(...) it was Jones who initiated and pressed the fight, which ultimately caused Jemison to defend herself (...)
So you do not have a source on that then, the story itself is vague "she escalated" but nowhere does it say she attacked words are escalation and she got shot for words? Is that the standard we're setting?
Words should not be met with... guns... only in America...
People only get convicted when prosecutors want to convict them lol considering they have the full power to simply make a claim that a case is possible, but sometimes they do things wrong. Like I recall one prosecutor who instructed his grand jury whether they could find beyond a reasonable doubt that a case should go forward that is specifically against what a grand jury is for that is what a jury is for
In America where a hospital can bankrupt you... it isn't too unusual if she thought she was maybe grazed or something.
Well, if you don't accept a source as a source, there's not much to do, right? Do you expect me to go there and interview her? This is what the police says, what other source do you expect? And no, I don't agree that words should be met with guns, but it's the US, so it's expected and you're stupid for putting your unborn child in that situation. And yes, it's her fault for doing that. She could have not started a fight, she could have walked away, she could have stopped pushing the person with the gun and after all that, she could have at least gone to a hospital to give her child a chance. The shooter did nothing wrong, or she'd be convicted.
you didn't address my point. the fact that you don't know what the word choice means. a forum does not require perfect grammer but nice try deflecting without addressing the point. par per usual for you cruor. also your doing a good enough job of that yourself.
in between your thinly veiled "kill all the poor people" posts and implying you would be ready to be the to die yourself in the health care thread and in this one saying women should be forced to have abortions. LOL. yep cruor i'm TOTALLY the dumb one here.
Last edited by breadisfunny; 2019-06-30 at 04:47 PM.
r.i.p. alleria. 1997-2017. blizzard ruined alleria forever. blizz assassinated alleria's character and appearance.
i will never forgive you for this blizzard.
You are... grammar matters to an extent, I shouldn't need to decipher your drivel. Choice would be for those who deserve the choice, what don't you understand? I don't get a choice in where my taxes go so why should they get to choose to Male another mouth for welfare to feed?
Last edited by Cruor; 2019-06-30 at 06:25 PM.
Noone is expecting a gun (or they shouldn't be) in a verbal altercation. If it was just verbal, then the shooter is in the wrong. And yes the pregnant woman is also wrong for starting it. But honestly why even use a gun on a pregnant woman? Why punish the child for their mothers actions? Unless you don't know.
You definitely should in the US of A. These weren't two business women in a quarrel about their quinoa salad...
The court didn't think so.If it was just verbal, then the shooter is in the wrong.
I don't even understand why people carry a gun, let alone use it, and definitely not why you'd use it on a pregnant woman, but here we are. Doesn't make the mom-to-be less guilty.And yes the pregnant woman is also wrong for starting it. But honestly why even use a gun on a pregnant woman? Why punish the child for their mothers actions? Unless you don't know.
Just because the shooter wasn't convicted doesn't mean she wasn't wrong. If it was just verbal, the court is fucking stupid. But we already know that because they indicted the mother on a manslaughter charge. No matter how wrong you think she is, you know that is ridiculous.
Oh really? I was under the impression from many other people on the internet that words don't actually mean anything. Weird how suddenly words are on the same level of guilt as shooting someone.
The woman who was shot is not at fault even if she started an argument. I believe that words can have significant power and meaning, but vocal anger or rudeness will never be equal to shooting someone.
Link to image.
I don't need you to respect me, I respect me. I don't need you to love me, I love me. But I want you to know you could know me if you change your mind.
Tell me there is updated information on this, or that this is really an Onion piece? Was there key information left out of the original article? I'm not doubting you, just hoping against hope that we as a country aren't this fucked up.
- - - Updated - - -
Is that why the Grand Jury failed to indict? That makes a lot more sense. But why the indictment on her re the pregnancy?
- - - Updated - - -
Regardless, if the Grand Jury failed to even indict, the evidence of escalation or attack by the pregnant woman or other information had to be relatively clear. GJ indictment thresholds are pretty low.
- - - Updated - - -
But this incident went through Grand Jury review. If they passed on indictment....
Why are you people still going on about how this was a verbal argument? In several of the articles I have read, the shooter claims that the pregnant woman physically assaulted her, grabbed her hair, etc., and it was only after that when she pulled her gun and fired in self-defense. And since the police and the grand jury had the evidence, and they didn't indict her, her story would seem to be true.
On the other side, a grand jury did recommend charges against the pregnant woman. They recommended charges based on, not the new abortion law (that isn't even in effect yet) that everyone keeps bringing up, especially fringe leftists and the press, for no reason because it plays literally no role in this case whatsoever, but a law from over a decade ago that counts a fetus as a person in cases of homicide, manslaughter, negligence, etc. They recommended manslaughter charges on that basis, that the pregnant mother knowingly/willfully endangered the unborn child's life by instigating the fight and the child died as a result of that instigation, thus the fault lies with her.
And according to the district attorney handling the case, she hasn't decided whether she will pursue the charges the grand jury recommended.
Here is what the district attorney handling the case has said on the matter thus far:
This whole case is a fucking joke. You have retarded fringe leftist retards attacking a black, female, Democrat district attorney, accusing her of racism and sexism and all that nonsense, for something SHE DIDN'T EVEN DO... All in defense of a piece of trash who got her own child killed by instigating a fight against someone because that someone talked with her husband/boyfriend (don't know their relationship, every article I have seen simply refer to him as 'the baby's father') because they worked together.Originally Posted by ABC News
So abortion is allowed and tolerated in Alabama if a gun is involved? I though those guys are going apeshit about controlled abortion it is that state that is trying to or already has very misogynistic laws right?