[bigjim]

Human life

We shooter types are so very fond of pointing out the value of human life and how we are completely justified in using deadly force in self defense. We seem to feel that it is ok to save the life of an innocent with what ever means may be necessary.

So I find it interesting that in the Scott Peterson case he is being charged with TWO murders his wife and his un-born son. If convicted of the murder of his unborn child this may set a legal precedent that a fetus is a human being.

OK lets make it really gun related....

Say you shoot a pregnant woman in self defense and both she and her unborn child die as a result?

What does this Scott Peterson case tells us about our liability? I am not looking for a chat about the moral status of abortion but instead a thread about the possible impact that this change in legal status of the fetus may have.

What say you?

[TallPine]

I say this thread's going to get closed real quick :(

[bigjim]

edited out because changes to the original topic made this post redundant.
That for the suggestion Betty

[Betty]

Just a suggestion - if you want us to follow your second topic and not the first, replace your text in the first post so the thread doesn't end up in the toilet like most threads on that topic do.

[bigjim]

OK betty will do

[semf]

It is already accepted into law in most states (all that I know of) that if your unlawful action causes the death of an unborn child you will be charged with it's murder. I know it's been like that in Fla for years. Whether you agree with pro-choice or not it is her choice not your's.

[bigjim]

I hear ya.

I was asking about lawful action, you shoot the woman in self defense. As a result of this lawful action the baby dies. There may well be case law soon that grants the baby protection independent from the mother.

Here is another twist:

A woman is on her way to the Abortion Doctor. On the way you shoot her. She lives the baby dies.

Can you still be charged with Murder? Is it her choice? If the state can step in and charge you with murder anyway even if the woman was on her way to kill the fetus, what kind of statement does that make?

I mean either it is a person or it is not. All religion and morality aside. The law needs to be evenly applied and we all need to be judged by the same standards. Other wise what are we really sacrificing here and for what?

[Archie]

1. In California (as in Florida, thank you semf) the murder laws include an unborn baby. There is an exception for medically approved abortion. So, there is no precedent making here. The precedent is established.

2. Shooting the pregnant woman in self-defense. In California law (and I bet most other states are similar), the person who causes the deadly encounter is responsible. For instance, two robbers stick up a bank, one of them is killed in the episode; the survivor can be charged with the death of the other, as the surviving criminal is responsible for the circumstance resulting in the death of the late lamented. (Some attorney may feel free to correct a detail or a wording, but this is essentially the law.)
So, if a pregnant woman attacks me with deadly physical force, and I use the appropriate defensive force (like shooting her), SHE is guilty of killing her child.

A woman is on her way to the Abortion Doctor. On the way you shoot her. She lives the baby dies.In this instance, I'm to blame. She didn't do anything to compel my use of deadly force. I suppose I could try to argue that I was trying to shoot her to prevent her from killing the baby, but I doubt that would fly. Even so, defense of self or an innocent third party must be done in a responsible manner.
If I am threatened with deadly physical force, and defend myself with a lack of care, shooting nine innocent bystanders because I am incapable of putting a shot on my attacker, I can't blame the attacker for my incompetence.

Anybody remember "Fearless Fosdick" from "Lil' Abner"?

[longeyes]

Attack of the Pregnant Woman.

Yeah, definitely one of my bigger concerns.:D

[spacemanspiff]

theres even more underlying issues here.
for starters, why is the woman headed for the abortion clinic in the first place? is it because she simply doesnt want to have a child? or is it because the doctors found abnormalities in the fetus and there is no chance the fetus will make it full term? or is it that the child has obvious defects and will be a vegetable if it is born?

if a pregnant woman comes at me with a knife, blunt object, or gun, i'll still do what i have to do to survive. obviously a pregnant woman that initiates an attack has no regard for the safety of her unborn child.

[grampster]

Here's my opinion:
A pregnant woman attacks you in such a felonious fashion as to warrant your use of deadly force. She dies and baby dies. Justifiable homicide, self defense. Woman's act is responsible for the death of the baby.

She dies, baby lives. Justifiable homicide, self defense.

She lives, baby dies. Justifiable homicide, self defense for you. Woman is charged with first degree murder due to baby's death resulted from her commission of a felony.

grampster

[bigjim]

Archie said: So, if a pregnant woman attacks me with deadly physical force, and I use the appropriate defensive force (like shooting her), SHE is guilty of killing her child.

Spacemanspiff said: if a pregnant woman comes at me with a knife, blunt object, or gun, i'll still do what i have to do to survive. obviously a pregnant woman that initiates an attack has no regard for the safety of her unborn child.

Archie, But if that same woman kills the same baby herself…there is no crime?

Spacemanspiff, But if she terminates the same unborn child or fetus with out your intervention she is showing concern for her child?

I am just not to good at this communication thing….I guess my question is do you think that that huge media driven trial will force the courts to revisit and define laws that relate to the fetus and its status as a person differently?

I am just bothered by the fact that my wife could go have our unborn child terminated with out issue but if I slip her an abortion pill I am a murder. I just think this case may force the admission that there is more to this than a woman’s whimsy. It is a child or it is not. Is the unborn subject to protection or not? I don’t much care either way but I would like to know and plan accordingly.

I think Scott should be tried for one case of Murder for killing Lacy and one case of denying Lacy a choice. I wonder which should carry the harsher punishment?

[corncob]

I think you are right. This kind of thing is bound to come up in court some day. I hope it causes all sorts of problems for the abortion industry.

My brother-in-law is an optimist. He thinks abortion will go the way of slavery, meaning people will at some point realize that it denies basic human rights to an entire group of people and make it illegal. If that is the case, something will have to get the ball rolling--exposing the inconsistencies in the "pro-choice" rhetoric to the light of public scrutiny. Maybe these kinds of legal cases will do it.

[Don Gwinn]

This wasn't going to be an abortion thread, remember?

[spacemanspiff]

now you're treading into very murky waters bigjim. legally, a woman can abort the fetus if she so chooses up until a certain trimester or whatever. is that still "murder"? according to a lot of people, yes it is.
i for one am torn as to when a fetus is its own entity. the question is not only philosophical, but also biological.

you have to define what is "human". what seperates homosapiens from animals and beasts? some might say that because humans are capable of making CHOICES that makes us different. others say all our behavior is governed by some instinct, conscious or subconscious.
but it could also be argued that such choice making is merely a learned behavior. an infant cant make a choice, it knows exactly what it wants. food, affection, something to gnaw on. as the infant grows it begins to learn how to choose.

now a fetus definitely doenst have those abilities. they are dependant and reliant upon their host. that host makes choices that affect the fetus. maybe the host decides to smoke or drink while pregnant. those choices can have an adverse affect upon how the infant develops.
if abortion is truly wrong no matter how far along the pregnancy is, then it should be a crime for a pregnant mother to do things that bring harm to the fetus.

in the case of scott peterson, if he is convicted of murder he should be executed, no matter if he killed one or twenty.

edit - now you tell me don......
okay, so refresh my memory? how was laci peterson killed? was she shot?

[semf]

[QUOTE]the question is not only philosophical, but also biological.

Actually I have to disagree with you. The question before us is legal only.
If your unlawful actions cause the death of an unborn child it's murder or possibly manslaughter. If the mother's unlawful actions cause it's death it would be the same as if you and your brother rob a bank and the security guard kills him you can be charged with your brother's murder evan if it was his plan. I beleive that's call the felony murder act, law or something.

If a woman's lawful action causes the death of an unborn child it's call abortion. And like it or not it's legal. If she's got her feet in the stirrups and you shoot her it's still murder, she can alway's change her mind at the last minute.

If I'm ever attack by a pregnant woman I'm pretty sure I can outrun her. If she's got a gun I can just dance around a tree for awhile, she's gonna have to go pee sooner or later.

[bigjim]

Spaceman spiff said: okay, so refresh my memory? how was laci peterson killed? was she shot?

Not sure I am confused now. She was either murdered or it was a VERY late term abortion. I think that is up to her mother.

SEMF said: If I'm ever attacked by a pregnant woman I'm pretty sure I can outrun her. If she's got a gun I can just dance around a tree for awhile, she's gonna have to go pee sooner or later.

That was funny SEMF. I have a number of funny replys but any of them would get this thread closed. Speaking of which I would not be heart broken if that happened now. This is not generateing the interest I thought it might. I think I am the only one that is tweaked by this aspect of the Peterson case and that probably means I am making a big deal of nothing.

[Black92LX]

So I find it interesting that in the Scott Peterson case he is being charged with TWO murders his wife and his un-born son. If convicted of the murder of his unborn child this may set a legal precedent that a fetus is a human being.


actually that precedent has already been set here in ohio. A friend of mine was beat to death by her husband while she say 6 months pregnant. and he was charged with two counts one for he mother and one for the baby.

[semf]

[QUOTE]What does this Scott Peterson case tells us about our liability? I am not looking for a chat about the moral status of abortion but instead a thread about the possible impact that this change in legal status of the fetus may have. [QUOTE]

Your original concern was a change in legal status of the fetus and the danger of a precedent being set. The precedent was set many many years ago and the fetus' legal status in a case like this is well established.

The only person who can legally decide to legally end a legally competent woman's pregnacy is her. That standard is so old it's practicly carved in stone.

[bigjim]

Semf said:
The only person who can legally decide to legally end a legally competent woman's pregnacy is her. That standard is so old it's practicly carved in stone.



yeah so what. If its wrong its wrong. I understand that this is way it is.
But.....I was wondering if this case could make reality part of this.

[rock jock]

Speaking of far-flung hypotheticals, what if you are attacked by a spotted owl? Would you be charged with some violation of the endangered species act if you killed it in self-defense?

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I had to defend myself against an aggressive snail darter once.

[Betty]

I was almost attacked by a pregnant girl once. She was a hot-tempered girl of ill repute, known for fighting and all-around badness. This was in high school and the hallways were crowded, so I ended up bumping into her. She cursed a storm and picked a fight with me. When things like that happen, the surrounding teenagers always part like a wave and make a circle to see what's going to happen.

I ignored her and moved on, hoping I wouldn't have to defend myself against a pregnant girl. She backed off.

As if women aren't painfully hormonal every 28 days, I can only imagine what hormones are like during pregnancy. (I could ask dad. :eek: )

As always, keep the thread on topic and away from the abortion issue.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I am going to have to agree with the Moderatrix on this one:evil:

As if women aren't painfully hormonal every 28 days

[Alexey931]

Human fetus is either a human being, or it is not. If it is, no abortion and a possibility of additional murder chagre. If it is not, things look simpler, but anyway, both approaches are within the realm of logic. The real problem is that the courts of law may end up treating fetuses as human beings in some cases and the other way around in other cases, which is illogical and will eventually backfire. I get it right?

Best regards, Alexey.

[Erik]

It would surely vary from state to state due to the politics of abortion, but what Grampster said aligns nicely to how I see things.

[MicroBalrog]

Under current Russian law, you may not use deadly force vs. a pregnant woman unless:

a)She's armed with a firearm.

b)She's acting as part of a larger group of attackers.:what:

[Betty]

Under current Russian law, you may not use deadly force vs. a pregnant woman unless:

a)She's armed with a firearm.



I can't use deadly force if she's using a machete or a chainsaw? :scrutiny:

[MicroBalrog]

I can't use deadly force if she's using a machete or a chainsaw?

As far as I understand from the letter of the law, no. However, the russian self-defense laws have changed recently, and that may have changed. On the other hand, I don't think the lawmakers took the possibility of being attacked by a pregnant woman with a chainsaw into account.:D

[semf]

[QUOTyeah so what. If its wrong its wrongE]
First we have to decide is this a discussion of the moral or legal issue.
It was my understanding that the discussion was about what is legal not what is moral.
My comments were about what I understand the law to be, Not about my moral convictions. If it matters to anybody, which it shouldn't, I don't approve of abortion except in in extreme circumstances. I don't believe it should be abolished thru legislation it should be made unnecessary thru education and thru people taking responsibility for their own actions and genitalia.
With that said all I can do at this point is repeat myself Only the mother has the LEGAL right to end a pregnancy.
And with that I'm out.