That is a bit misleading. If a woman doesn't buckle her child's seat belt she can be charged even if somebody hits her car. In this case she started a violent argument with another person and it resulted in the death of her child.
Also, the article was from years ago. The charges were literally dropped despite an indictment from a grand jury.
As someone coming from a different ethical background I think your comment is complete inline with what would irritates me regarding the case (without considering the legal outcome). Putting an unborn on the same level as a child and to even blame anyone for triggering gun use while being unarmed themselves seems totally outside my reality.
It should be taken into account the article is not from US media. Typically in Europe it would probably not be considered misleading for the aforementioned reasons.
The majority of states in the US considers killing a pregnant woman the same as killing two people (assuming it doesn't happen during an abortion). This is consistent with the existing laws in most states.
Using a gun even if another person is unarmed can be justified. If somebody is trying to kill you, you have a right to defend yourself. If you have a gun then you can use it. If somebody was unarmed, trying to kill you, while you are holding a bat would you find it acceptable to use the bat to defend yourself? If you would defend yourself then a gun is no different. If you would not then we disagree on the concept of self defense and don't think we are going to agree on anything high level when we can't agree on the core principles.
The author seems to be making a big leap: assuming that when someone is accused of a crime, it's the responsibility of the accused to prove that a crime didn't actually happen.
Is that actually the case? My possibly-very-flawed layman's view of the legal system is that it's on the prosecutor to prove that you did something wrong. So if you just say "oh I played around with the app and gave it random input" or "I had a miscarriage", then the onus is on the government to explain why that isn't the case.
> My possibly-very-flawed layman's view of the legal system is that it's on the prosecutor to prove that you did something wrong.
It is, but practically there's some big issues with that. Including:
The police can investigate, including in ways that are going to be very uncomfortable, costly and annoying for you. This app will definitely be used as evidence.
Some of the anti-abortion laws are being written as allowing people to sue you. That shifts the burden of proof away from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to something much easier.
If you do get charged with a crime _many_ people take plea bargains for good game-theoretic reasons. You can tell yourself that you'd definitely fight it until the end, but often that'd be idiotic, and traumatic if you really did.
These kinds of things tend to get used disproportionally against the poor and the marginalized.
In some states miscarriage will
be a crime if it believed the lifestyle choices of the mother caused the miscarriage. The biggest example is drug usage but it’s unclear what other lifestyle choices will be considered.
This is similar to a legal conundrum I once thought of: As a matter of rational jurisprudence, could a woman be prosecuted for drinking while pregnant? Or, at the very least, could either the state or the eventual child sue the mother for medical damages?
The research for pregnancy is also not great in general so it really leaves a wide scope of attack. For example, there are arguments that alcohol in moderation is not bad for the fetus. For alcohol to be bad you have to exceed the mothers ability to process it. One night of heavy drinking can cause severe harm, but one glass of wine a day may be able to be processed without issue(I am not a doctor, do not use this comment as a justification to drink while pregnant ;-)
I'm aware that medicine hasn't discovered a bright line between what's healthy and what would likely cause fetal alcohol syndrome or premature infant death. While any lawyer worth his salt would attack the lack of substantive medical literature, judges and legislators have now and in the past invented bright line tests that, while not wholly accurate, are "good enough" to account for a general decision (although I don't agree with that kind of reasoning myself).
In my example, I could have also used tobacco in place of alcohol, but the point I wished to address is whether the health of an imminent child trumps the rights of a mother or vice versa. If one accepts the affirmative position, then a woman does not have a right to her own body. If we accept the negative position, then the child will become a long-term burden on the medical system at the expense of others.
Technically, yes, innocent until proven guilty. In practice, however...
The fact is women are already being prosecuted, and in some cases jailed, over miscarriages. There have been cases already where women have been charged and even convicted, even when it was unclear whether or not they intentionally caused the miscarriage. And don't lose sight over the trauma women will have to endure fighting these types of charges, even if they manage to not be convicted.
Roe V Wade hasn't even been overturned yet and this shit is already happening.
If you can reasonably prove it wasn't you, you can likely go home within a day or two.
If you can't, you get to personally spend a fortune on a lawyer and wait in jail and attend court for 6months to ultimately be vindicated but bankrupt and unemployed...
My father-in-law picked up his wife’s medication (narcotics) the day after she died from cancer. Just going through the motions… arrested and charged with fraud.
He’s still waiting on his court date, nearly four years later. Thank god he was allowed to post bail, go to his wife’s funeral, and live his life while he waits. His daughter who was in the car was also charged just for being in the car (she had no idea what was going on), and denied bail. She wasn’t allowed to come to the funeral.
There were several points at which someone could have said “dude, I’m really sorry, but you know your wife passed away yesterday?” Not a single person did that in that small town.
I guess the point is, even if you can prove it was someone else, or that you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, you can spend years in jail just waiting to tell a judge.
Wow, sorry to hear that about your father in law. It might not have even been a case of going through motions, but it could be a coping mechanism also. When people suffer a big loss, it can cause people to do weird things or actions without much thought. An example is, there is a grave site of a little boy who passed and his father had him buried with a sort of sun roof thing where light could get inside. His explanation was that his son was afraid of the dark. Before I was a parent, I would probably think, wow that is weird. Now that I am a parent, I think about that and go, "if I lost my 6 year old right now, there is no telling what I would do, that would probably be me."
Your last point. That is definitely an issue. Even if innocent, all the motions of waiting to go to trail can wreck someone's life. Try explaining to an employer I've got an upcoming court date for murder or theft and I swear I am innocent. So can you pretty please keep me employed while I wait 3 years for my trial?
Alabama woman charged after losing unborn baby in shooting https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48789836