Discussion in 'New Roundtable' started by Bengal B, Aug 20, 2017.
I couldn't imagine this would stick
If you want to have your cake and eat it too you have to pay for the whole cake.
1) I live in South Carolina.
2) It's none of my damn business what another state does or whom they elect to represent them. (While I didn't support Roy Moore from afar, I thought people living in other states monetarily supporting other in state candidates is none of their business as well.)
That story seems more like a case of willful endangerment (or something akin) than it does manslaughter. However, how the states' statutes are written manslaughter may be the charge they are left with. I don't know. I did notice that's a Grand Jury indictment ... could easily go either way.
BTW, the only thing that article you linked failed to point out (whether intentional or not) is that police found her, after the shooting, in a convenience store. Now, you've just been shot in the stomach, you're pregnant and you're immediately heading to a suburb with your first stop a local 7-11 type of establishment? You are not calling for help, but ...
Something seems amiss with both the author of your link and the details of the story itself. What else was the GJ a witness to? Again, I don't know.
Are you actually defending the concept? Where ever you live you’re a gump if that’s the case. In no sane world should a woman who is shot and loses a child be charged with that child’s murder.
You can take the boy out of Alabama but you can't take the Alabama out of the boy.
If I understand the story correctly, the person that shot her acted in self defense. If true, then her own actions led to the baby's death, so in that circumstance, maybe the charges are warranted.
Dude, what part of "none of my business" and "I don't know" did you miss? Don't start trying to characterize me. @Bengal B
You provided a link with a snarky comment about the state of Alabama. (Yeah, there's not another issue at play here, right?) I made a comment on the charge itself which you read as a defense "of the concept." I question the author with the quote, "something is amiss" and that's defending the concept? I point out that she, the author, leaves out the police found her (the accused) after the shooting, in a convenience store? You know, versus a hospital or the alternatives? But, to you, nothing is amiss about this story? Are you gong to sit there and tell me that isn't willful endangerment when a women is shot in the stomach, while pregnant, and she decides to go to a convenience store versus seeking medical treatment? In what sane world is that not putting the life of a child in danger?
Ah...but there's a good chance that's what you were driving at in the first place. The life of a child? There's a pot hole here, my friend. It's none of your business.
Now, I'm shaking my head thinking about having to walk you through this. It's something that should have been taught in high school.
If you'll notice it's a Grand Jury indictment. What does that tell you? It should, in volumes, speak to what the Grand Jury heard from the prosecution. You don't know those details. Yet, you're sitting there criticizing me for something you know nothing of other than an incomplete article (which apparently you didn't read in full detail.) Oh, and of course, that's leaving out you don't know a damn thing about me.
DA won't prosecute. Mommy to be set free.
spit out the seeds