4 ms·

To summarize (as I had considerable trouble wading through the huge, vague articles on this proceeding), hopefully accurately: The logic is that she committed

To summarize (as I had considerable trouble wading through the huge, vague articles on this proceeding), hopefully accurately: The logic is that she committed manslaughter by dragging the infant-to-be into a violent confrontation that she started, and which she escalated to the point that force was justified in defense against her (that part seems to be considered established). Like if you involved yourself in a high speed chase with an infant in the car, and that infant died in the proceedings, you would likely be guilty of manslaughter (in Alabama and some other places).

xiphias2 7y ago
Shooting a pregnant woman out of defence can be justified only in the U.S. In any other country in the world you have to be extra careful with weapons.
- hackeraccount 7y ago
  So if I'm in Canada and a pregnant woman tries to kill me I'm pretty much out of luck if I kill her in self defense?
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    You have to have a “reasonable belief that you’re in danger.” and "the level of force needs to be reasonable given the circumstances. " In practice, prosecutors in Canada are quite likely to charge you with a crime no matter what to let the court decide rather than making that decision themselves. Once it hits court, juries are usually quite sympathetic to the self defense argument. (Not a lawyer, this is all heresay).
- microcolonel 7y ago
  So when a pregnant woman puts somebody in mortal danger, it is somehow the victim's fault for meeting deadly force with deadly force? I don't think that would fly even here in Canada. The law may differ on duty to retreat and other matters (though in this case the victim retreated after retaliating), but at the end of the day, there is a circumstance where use of deadly force is justified against a person, whether that person is a pregnant woman or not. You're not meant to simply roll over and die when attacked by a pregnant woman so as not to offend the sensibilities of some random HN commenter.
  - xiphias2 7y ago
    According to the article it was ,,a dispute with another woman over the father of the child''. Of course if it's mortal danger, things are different, but I think it's generally very hard for a pregnant woman to kill another woman without a gun. The death statistics of U.S. compared to other countries don't support the theory that guns are used only in mortal danger.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      > ...but I think it's generally very hard for a pregnant woman to kill another woman without a gun You are extremely wrong in that thought. One wrong bump on the head, and you are a goner. Don't get in a fight, don't start a fight, and don't stay in a fight you won't finish. Two average-build women fighting is perilous for the participants just like two average-build men fighting. In the heat of an argument, one or the other is going to get the upper hand, and maybe today they don't choose a good time to stop pounding their opponent's head into the pavement. If you aren't willing to defend yourself, you can only hope that your opponent will show mercy when the time comes; I don't think it is really appropriate to ask the victim of an escalating battery to wait and see if they'll be killed once the situation is completely out of their control. More details will probably become available, but there are circumstances that can be established, under which the charge discussed makes sense, and under which the person who fired the firearm is not guilty of an offence; such as if the pregnant woman is committing assault in the first or second degree. > The death statistics of U.S. compared to other countries don't support the theory that guns are used only in mortal danger. What kind of non-sequitur is that? Nobody is making that claim or any statement that could depend on it.
      - futureastronaut 7y ago
        If I follow your logic, lethal force is justified in any physical conflict because of the risk of "one wrong bump to the head."
        microcolonel 7y ago

xiphias2 7y ago

Shooting a pregnant woman out of defence can be justified only in the U.S. In any other country in the world you have to be extra careful with weapons.

hackeraccount 7y ago
So if I'm in Canada and a pregnant woman tries to kill me I'm pretty much out of luck if I kill her in self defense?
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  You have to have a “reasonable belief that you’re in danger.” and "the level of force needs to be reasonable given the circumstances. " In practice, prosecutors in Canada are quite likely to charge you with a crime no matter what to let the court decide rather than making that decision themselves. Once it hits court, juries are usually quite sympathetic to the self defense argument. (Not a lawyer, this is all heresay).
microcolonel 7y ago
So when a pregnant woman puts somebody in mortal danger, it is somehow the victim's fault for meeting deadly force with deadly force? I don't think that would fly even here in Canada. The law may differ on duty to retreat and other matters (though in this case the victim retreated after retaliating), but at the end of the day, there is a circumstance where use of deadly force is justified against a person, whether that person is a pregnant woman or not. You're not meant to simply roll over and die when attacked by a pregnant woman so as not to offend the sensibilities of some random HN commenter.
- xiphias2 7y ago
  According to the article it was ,,a dispute with another woman over the father of the child''. Of course if it's mortal danger, things are different, but I think it's generally very hard for a pregnant woman to kill another woman without a gun. The death statistics of U.S. compared to other countries don't support the theory that guns are used only in mortal danger.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > ...but I think it's generally very hard for a pregnant woman to kill another woman without a gun You are extremely wrong in that thought. One wrong bump on the head, and you are a goner. Don't get in a fight, don't start a fight, and don't stay in a fight you won't finish. Two average-build women fighting is perilous for the participants just like two average-build men fighting. In the heat of an argument, one or the other is going to get the upper hand, and maybe today they don't choose a good time to stop pounding their opponent's head into the pavement. If you aren't willing to defend yourself, you can only hope that your opponent will show mercy when the time comes; I don't think it is really appropriate to ask the victim of an escalating battery to wait and see if they'll be killed once the situation is completely out of their control. More details will probably become available, but there are circumstances that can be established, under which the charge discussed makes sense, and under which the person who fired the firearm is not guilty of an offence; such as if the pregnant woman is committing assault in the first or second degree. > The death statistics of U.S. compared to other countries don't support the theory that guns are used only in mortal danger. What kind of non-sequitur is that? Nobody is making that claim or any statement that could depend on it.
    - futureastronaut 7y ago
      If I follow your logic, lethal force is justified in any physical conflict because of the risk of "one wrong bump to the head."
      - microcolonel 7y ago