Alabama woman charged with manslaughter of her unborn baby.

[1bad65]

Literal insanity to be on board with this

A pregnant lady is shot, loses her baby, and she's charged with a crime for it. I can't think of anything more ridiculous.

She assaulted someone, which set the whole thing off.

You left that key part out.

Just because you are knocked up doesn't give you a free pass to assault other people.

[BrometheusBob.]

She assaulted someone, which set the whole thing off.

You left that key part out.

Just because you are knocked up doesn't give you a free pass to assault other people.

Cops aren't charging her with assault. Stop adding details to the story.

Even if she had, wouldn't make it seem any less crazy to me to be charged with a crime for being shot at.

[BrometheusBob.]

Initially, police charged Jemison, 23, with manslaughter but the charges were dismissed when a grand jury didn’t indict her.

Cops went after the other woman first, failed, now they're just switching targets to get a conviction on this.

What a joke.

https://nypost.com/2019/06/26/alabam...ing-when-shot/

[1bad65]

Cops aren't charging her with assault. Stop adding details to the story.

Even if she had, wouldn't make it seem any less crazy to me to be charged with a crime for being shot at.

The cops obviously arent piling on charges. Likely because she lost her kid.

Do you prefer they do pile on charges on her?

The fact is there was an assault, which is why the shooter (who was assaulted) isnt the one being charged.

I'm not sure what part of this legal concept you cant seem to grasp.

[1bad65]

Cops went after the other woman first, failed, now they're just switching targets to get a conviction on this.

What a joke.

https://nypost.com/2019/06/26/alabam...ing-when-shot/

They arent "switching targets".

They tried to get an indictment and the grand jury failed to return one.


Dude, you're proving to me more ignorant of the law than the forum's resident phony lawyer.

[BrometheusBob.]

They arent "switching targets".

They tried to get an indictment and the grand jury failed to return one.


Dude, you're proving to me more ignorant of the law than the forum's resident phony lawyer.

They started by suggesting the other woman was at fault and are now saying this woman was at fault when the other story wouldn't stick.

Not that hard to grasp.

[BrometheusBob.]

The cops obviously arent piling on charges. Likely because she lost her kid.

Do you prefer they do pile on charges on her?

The fact is there was an assault, which is why the shooter (who was assaulted) isnt the one being charged.

I'm not sure what part of this legal concept you cant seem to grasp.

You may have taken the wording of my post too literally. Point is the cops have not suggested she assaulted the other woman, you are the one providing that detail.

[1bad65]

They started by suggesting the other woman was at fault and are now saying this woman was at fault when the other story wouldn't stick.

Not that hard to grasp.

They didnt "suggest" she was at fault, they charged her with a crime!!

It was a grand jury who failed to indict.

The cops obviously listened to the grand jury, which is a good thing. A check and balance.

Quit mimicking me like a child and just try keeping up.

[1bad65]

You may have taken the wording of my post too literally. Point is the cops have not suggested she assaulted the other woman, you are the one providing that detail.

Not sure what you're saying here.

Can you rephrase it, please?

[WarVeteranO01]

Literal insanity to be on board with this

A pregnant lady is shot, loses her baby, and she's charged with a crime for it. I can't think of anything more ridiculous.

I can. A pregnant woman instigating a fight at a Dollar store seems more outrageous to me.