She had a stillborn baby. Now she’s being charged with murder.

It doesn't matter, they will still argue "she didn't really mean to do it".

 

She's basically say "Don't judge me". ------ Very common female pro-choice tactic.

 

There have been a few cases in recent years where the woman has been let off so it's not that outrageous a thought unfortunately.

 

"I don't advocate murder!" - Feminists
"Get your abortions now girls!" - Also feminists

 

Complete and utter bovine excrement!

She has the PRESUMPTION of INNOCENCE and YOU, as the accuser, have the BURDEN OF PROOF!

That is how the LAW of the LAND works in reality.

 

Beyond the fact high enough doses of methamphetamine have killed grown adults, who have much greater body mass and a greater ability to metabolize the substance?

 

And the coroner who performed the autopsy labeled the death a homicide due to an overdose with a fatal level of an illicit narcotic substance. This case is now officially a murder.

 

Duh, because a fetus hasn't been born.....


Anyone know why Anti-Choicers want a fetus to have superior/more rights than anyone else?

 

Perhaps for the same reason homosexuals and individuals of minority races qualify for special legal protections to shield them against hate-based attacks.

 

"Revealing" ? In what way? What's did it "reveal" ???

What did it "reveal" that you didn't know before ?


Why did you say it was "revealing" but couldn't say what it "revealed" ??

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Duh, because a fetus hasn't been born.....

Anyone know why Anti-Choicers want a fetus to have superior/more rights than anyone else?

Uh, no they don't have superior rights.....

...and you said "same reason" YET you never gave a reason why Anti-Choicers want a fetus to have superior/more rights than anyone else?

 

WHERE TF did any Pro-Choicer advocate that pregnant women do meth?


They didn't so when you have no facts you make things up ...

 

Just an aside: Why would anyone give a rat's butt about what your grandmothers thought??

 

The ONUS remains on the PROSECUTION to PROVE INTENT if they want a murder charge to stick.

Hospital staff have been known to give overdoses with a fatal level of narcotic substances WITHOUT INTENT to do any harm. Are they charged with murder?

How is this any different?

 

Those are NOT RIGHTS!

The Constitution makes it ILLEGAL to DISCRIMINATE which is what those hate laws are based upon.

 

It's a good point!

 

I'm not a legal expert, but from what I'm quickly reading, there can be a blurry line between murder, manslaughter, and reckless endangerment, in some cases.

When reckless endangerment rises to the level that the death was a near certainty, what is that?
What do you call it when the perpetrator intentionally caused the death, knowing full well their actions would cause death, but causing the death was not their motivating intention?

You see, the word intention does not seem to be well-defined by the law and is open to some interpretation.

Even more confusing, there are different degrees of murder, and the thing that distinguishes first degree murder from the others is premeditation. Continuously taking hard drugs over the course of a pregnancy certainly counts as premeditation. So as much as I might like to classify it as some "lesser degree of murder", like third degree murder, by legal definition if it is a murder it would be first degree, not second or third.

Edit: Maybe this would be classified as a reckless homicide.

 

Also I am looking at voluntary manslaughter.
By some definitions, manslaughter is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice (desire to inflict injury on others).
However, this certainly would not be the usual definition of the term voluntary manslaughter, which usually does not have premeditation.

(It looks like in terms of pure legal definition, both the state of California where this happened and the federal government both specifically define voluntary manslaughter as happening "upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion", so although this could possibly be voluntary manslaughter under the purest legal definition, the woman in this situation could not be charged with it in her legal jurisdiction)​

 

Not particularly. In the case of a firearm-related death,the prosecution is never tasked with proving an individual who shoots another intended to murder the one they shot. All that will have to be proven is the mother, knowing she was pregnant at the time, chose to inject herself with an illicit narcotic substance with complete disregard to the well being of her child.

If they are not, then they certainly should be.

Beyond the fact that the illicit narcotic substance, in this case methamphetamine, is illegal at the state and federal levels, and is not subject to any safety standards in its manufacture to ensure toxic substances are not present in the finished product?

 

I started a separate thread about this here: What type of homicide would this be?

If anyone wants to discuss the legal aspects of it, in terms of definitions.

 

Besides the fact that it is illegal and a felony crime, I would argue that even if the drugs were completely legal, what she did would still be a serious crime.

She should have known it would kill her unborn child.

She might as well have paid some kickboxer to use her swollen big pregnant belly as a punching bag.
That would not be much different from what she did.

 

I disagree with the explanation in Xenamne's argument.

If they give medication causing death and it is accidental, that is not a crime. (They might be subject to civil liability though)

The difference is they were attempting to provide medication that they should be administering (had the legal right to administer, beneficial to the patient, had the patient's consent), but in trying to do the right thing, they accidentally administered the wrong thing.

If you administer a medication knowing that it will likely cause harm to the patient, and the expected benefits to them do not outweigh the risks, then that is a crime.

Imagine for example a doctor administers an untested medication, that he knows may likely kill the patient, and does so without the patient's consent. He does this not because he wants to kill the patient but because he is interested in his own medical research. That is a crime, and the doctor will be held responsible for the death.

 

In this instance the ADDICT is medicating themselves. The ADDICT needs the drugs in order NOT to go through WITHDRAWAL symptoms. Going through meth withdrawal symptoms during delivery would be a double stress situation on her body that could kill her.

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-to-expect-from-meth-withdrawal-22358

Depression makes people SUICIDAL.

Psychosis includes HALLUCINATIONS.

In essence any competent lawyer can argue that she was self medicating so as to be able to give birth. The alternative to self medicating could have been her committing suicide while hallucinating and killing both herself and the fetus in the process.

So any attempt at a murder charge is going to have to overcome REASONABLE DOUBT which is all that is needed for an ACQUITTAL.

At most a charge of reckless child endangerment would make it past a jury but charging her with murder is just GRANDSTANDING on the part of some prosecutor who wants to make a name for themselves as being "tough on crime".

When the Defense can demonstrate that the alternative to not using meth would have meant undergoing withdrawal during delivery all it would take is to have a single woman on the jury who could imagine that happening to herself and the jury would not be able to reach a verdict or would acquit on grounds of reasonable doubt.

 

The levels of meth in the baby were sky high. It's obvious she wasn't trying to reduce the dosage and wean herself off it.
She had several months knowing she was pregnant, and all through that time she did not reduce the dosage.

 

So would a human fetus be born a sun flower or a human baby?