It's pretty cut and dry. The gun wielder should be charged with second degree murder and mother should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. Gun wielder didn't plan to shoot the woman nor her baby, it happened so it wasn't premeditated. The reason I skipped voluntary manslaughter for the gun wielder is that there was no immediate threat of death... but the woman shot anyways.
Your point about involuntary is right on. Theyd have a much better shot at a conviction there. Also correct on the last point. It would be very difficult to convince anyone, especially a prosecuting attorney, that someone who brings a gun to a fist fight has a legitimate self defense claim. Especially when the pregnant woman looks to be about 115 lbs. That part is really strange to me.
If you really wanted to get the most out of the pregnant lady, the smartest way would be felony murder. Most states have it and it takes causation totally out of the picture. If you are engaged in a felony, and someone dies during the commission of it, you can get hit with with second degree murder under the felony murder portion of the statute. For example, in mo a few years back, 4 people were pulled over transporting a felony amount of MJ. The driver pulled a gun on the officer. The officer shot and killed the driver. All 3 were charged with felony murder of the death of their buddy. Evidence was there that they knew about the drugs, but not the gun. All convicted because they were transporting drugs, a felony, and someone died during the commission.
A smart prosecutor who wants her charged with a homicide would have said felony endangering the welfare of a child and the child died during the commission. No need to debate about causation and murder 2 is a significantly higher charge, giving the state more leverage to negotiate.
Without checking Alabama laws I'm going to assume they are on the "stand your ground" end of the self defense spectrum. Thus for basically any attack you are within your rights to shoot to kill to protect yourself. So the shooter is in the clear for using deadly force in the altercation.
Most states have laws in place that treat an unborn baby as having full personhood if the baby is killed in an attack. So like you rob a pregnant lady and kill her and the baby dies too you're charged with double homicide. I don't know how far along the baby has to be for that to come into effect.
A lot of places have also set laws stating if you are participating in an illegal action and someone is hurt/dies, even if it's not you who caused that specific outcome, you're on the hook anyway. I don't know if Alabama does that or not but let's assume so.
So given you have someone who assualts another person, causing deadly force to be used, that results in the death of a person, you could very well legally make the argument manslaughter is an appropriate charge. Convicting is another story.
I'm curious exactly what version of a law for each of those aspects Alabama has on the books. There are probably several points where the whole argument breaks down if a law is too strict or lax.
If you consider current political climate, the anti abortion movement is pushing fetus personhood as early as possible. It's reasonable to have a consistent standard across your laws, although that's not where I'd want to see it.
You are correct that stand your ground likely is the answer there. We dont have it in my state, so I never think about it. Stand your ground is a defense though. Same with castle doctrine here in MO. It's really rare that those people do not get charged at all. Under those circumstances, people are almost always charged and a jury decides if the defense applies. It's rare for a prosecutor to opt not to charge at all with few exceptions (like if you were to shoot a burglar in your house at 2 am).
Comments
It's pretty cut and dry. The gun wielder should be charged with second degree murder and mother should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. Gun wielder didn't plan to shoot the woman nor her baby, it happened so it wasn't premeditated. The reason I skipped voluntary manslaughter for the gun wielder is that there was no immediate threat of death... but the woman shot anyways.
Your point about involuntary is right on. Theyd have a much better shot at a conviction there. Also correct on the last point. It would be very difficult to convince anyone, especially a prosecuting attorney, that someone who brings a gun to a fist fight has a legitimate self defense claim. Especially when the pregnant woman looks to be about 115 lbs. That part is really strange to me.
If you really wanted to get the most out of the pregnant lady, the smartest way would be felony murder. Most states have it and it takes causation totally out of the picture. If you are engaged in a felony, and someone dies during the commission of it, you can get hit with with second degree murder under the felony murder portion of the statute. For example, in mo a few years back, 4 people were pulled over transporting a felony amount of MJ. The driver pulled a gun on the officer. The officer shot and killed the driver. All 3 were charged with felony murder of the death of their buddy. Evidence was there that they knew about the drugs, but not the gun. All convicted because they were transporting drugs, a felony, and someone died during the commission.
A smart prosecutor who wants her charged with a homicide would have said felony endangering the welfare of a child and the child died during the commission. No need to debate about causation and murder 2 is a significantly higher charge, giving the state more leverage to negotiate.
Without checking Alabama laws I'm going to assume they are on the "stand your ground" end of the self defense spectrum. Thus for basically any attack you are within your rights to shoot to kill to protect yourself. So the shooter is in the clear for using deadly force in the altercation.
Most states have laws in place that treat an unborn baby as having full personhood if the baby is killed in an attack. So like you rob a pregnant lady and kill her and the baby dies too you're charged with double homicide. I don't know how far along the baby has to be for that to come into effect.
A lot of places have also set laws stating if you are participating in an illegal action and someone is hurt/dies, even if it's not you who caused that specific outcome, you're on the hook anyway. I don't know if Alabama does that or not but let's assume so.
So given you have someone who assualts another person, causing deadly force to be used, that results in the death of a person, you could very well legally make the argument manslaughter is an appropriate charge. Convicting is another story.
I'm curious exactly what version of a law for each of those aspects Alabama has on the books. There are probably several points where the whole argument breaks down if a law is too strict or lax.
If you consider current political climate, the anti abortion movement is pushing fetus personhood as early as possible. It's reasonable to have a consistent standard across your laws, although that's not where I'd want to see it.
You are correct that stand your ground likely is the answer there. We dont have it in my state, so I never think about it. Stand your ground is a defense though. Same with castle doctrine here in MO. It's really rare that those people do not get charged at all. Under those circumstances, people are almost always charged and a jury decides if the defense applies. It's rare for a prosecutor to opt not to charge at all with few exceptions (like if you were to shoot a burglar in your house at 2 am).