Today’s GOP insanity

[Black Aeronaut]

If these people aren't careful, this will blow up in their faces in the worst ways possible.

[hazard]

Oh, you mean in the Republicans' face?

That's already happening I think. They're driving a fair number of independent women away from them.

[classicdrogn]

Hm. I missed most of the radio news story as it was almost over when I got up just now, but apparently Missouri is joining the reindeer games, by refusing to renew the liscence of the one remaining abortion clinic in the state. Something about reinterpreting the regulations in allegedly malicious ways and intimidation tactics on the workers? I was (and still am) a bit muzzy still.

[Matrix Dragon]

What did I tell you? WHAT DID I FUCKING TELL YOU?!

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2019/...issed.html

[hazard]

Wow that's unconstitutional. That law is currently being applied to a matter that occurred before it was signed into law and became enforceable.

[Rajvik]

What they are probably not saying, (I will be honest, I only saw the headline which was all it took to know the case) is that the woman started and provoked the fight that got her shot.

She WAS NOT A VICTIM

[Matrix Dragon]

How did I fucking KNOW you were going to pull that bullshit out of your ass.

[Isodecan]

What they are probably not saying, (I will be honest, I only saw the headline which was all it took to know the case) is that the woman started and provoked the fight that got her shot.

She WAS NOT A VICTIM

The way I see that it doesn't really matter in this particular case.  They are charging her with a crime based on a law which was not in effect at the time that the event occurred; to make matter worse, the police already charged her under existing laws at that time (at least according to the article) and the grand jury did not indict her at that time.

[Matrix Dragon]

From my reading of it, the woman that actually SHOT HER was charged and not indicted. So now the woman THAT WAS SHOT is facing up to 20 years. What the fuck.

[Epsilon]

What they are probably not saying, (I will be honest, I only saw the headline which was all it took to know the case) is that the woman started and provoked the fight that got her shot.

She WAS NOT A VICTIM

Unless she was attempting to murder someone, she did not deserve to be shot much less charged with murder for daring to get into a fight while pregnant.

[hazard]

What they are probably not saying, (I will be honest, I only saw the headline which was all it took to know the case) is that the woman started and provoked the fight that got her shot.

She WAS NOT A VICTIM

1) They did include that fact.
2) It's irrelevant. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the USA Constitution forbids ex post facto laws. That is to say, it's unconstitutional for any federal or state government to charge someone for any act for which no law applied at the time the act was committed. The woman is being charged for an act she committed that was not illegal when she committed it, which means that the state is applying an ex post facto law. If this gets brought up in any proceeding and Alabama does not get flattened the USA legal system just changed massively.

[robkelk]

... (I will be honest, I only saw the headline ...

Please read articles before commenting on them. The rest of us here take the time to put in that amount of work.

[Norgarth]

What they are probably not saying, (I will be honest, I only saw the headline which was all it took to know the case) is that the woman started and provoked the fight that got her shot.

She WAS NOT A VICTIM

Okay since you didn't read anything beyond the headline, here's what I determined from reading through the linked article and skimming a couple further linked articles

Woman A(the pregnant woman) got into an argument with Woman B in a dollar store parking lot, this was not the first time, they'd been having loud argumrnts for several months at this point over the father of the child who was apparently now with Woman B.

As the yelling match goes on, B walks back to her car, with A following (the back and forth bitching likely continuing, but I didn't see anything for sure about it).  Upon getting into her car, B decides that the proper response to the argument and that A won't shut up, is to pull out a pistol and shoot her.  Note, there was no indicators that physical violence had been initiated by either woman prior top this, so B seems to have decided, rather than simply drive away, to win the argument with a bullet.

ETA:
One account indicates that A started walking away after seeing the gun, and B shot her anyways. (not sure if said account is accurate)

[Rajvik]

alright, since i cannot seem to get quoting multiple posts to work for some strange reason, ii guess i'm going to have to do this the hard way.

Rob: The reason i did not read the article is this is a case that was covered by the local news, therefore ii didn't feel the express need to. That said, in the state of Alabama, if you do what the woman who was shot did, it is considered aggressive behavior and you are legally able to defend yourself, and yes that includes shooting the other person. 

Epsilon: That is your personal opinion, it is not that they got in the argument and the shooter simply pulled a pistol and shot the pregnant woman, the pregnant pursued the first to her vehicle where the shooter then retrieved her gun and shot her. For all we know, threats were made causing the woman to feel threatened and pull the gun out to be able to leave.

Norgarth: No physical violence, but how about threats, did woman A block the ability for B to leave without hitting her and damaging the car? Again, Alabama, my area, arguably the woman was in her right to do so if she felt threatened. and your little looping meme was cute, Home Alone, right? That account you edited in is probably why woman B was initially charged with attempted murder for shooting woman A.

Isodecan, Hazard: You two actually have the most legally pertinent argument as you are right, the incident happened two years ago and she is being charged under a law that didn't exist at that time, therefore it will either be laughed out by the judge, (a good lawyer can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich) or on appeal the case will be overturned on that merit alone. 

Matrix Dragn: Honestly i almost ignored you just to keep the tension down, and part of me wants to troll you so unmercifully that it actually physically hurts, but i won't. Just realize and remember that if everyone thought exactly like you, then there would be nothing to talk about.

Now, i'm going to say something, or more accurately point something out, without me here you seem to have something of an echo chamber, one of you says "Oh how horrible X is," a few of you chime in agreeing and then the matter pretty much dies because you are all in agreement. The fact that you have practically no debate on the merits of the issue is questionable in my eyes, therefore sometimes i disagree with you simply to either be contrary or to play devils advocate. On the other hand there are times that I honestly disagree with you, and in all honesty you are not going to be able to tell the difference when i argue the point because i will argue both sides with equal fervor.

That pointed out, and reiterating that i don't agree with Alabama's abortion ban, nor for that matter do i think  that this woman should be charged with anything more than reckless endangerment (of herself and her unborn child), i think you all need to realize that i am not your enemy, i just think differently than you do because of different factors in my life.

[Matrix Dragon]

Matrix Dragn: Honestly i almost ignored you just to keep the tension down, and part of me wants to troll you so unmercifully that it actually physically hurts, but i won't. Just realize and remember that if everyone thought exactly like you, then there would be nothing to talk about.

Funny thing. When I saw you replied, before I even looked at the post, I went 'I'll bet he's decided to blame the woman that was shot, and declare that she's not a victim in any way.' And I was right. 

It's not that you think differently to us. It's not that you like to play 'devils advocate' to help fight 'the echo chamber'. It's that, time and time again, you present yourself as nothing more than a sexist, racist, homophobic, intolerant asshole, who at times seems to be almost aroused by the suffering of others. I know that sounds extreme, but that's how you present yourself. And you've done it so often, so consistently, so predictably? I almost truly believe that's who you are. In this forum? You've never shown any proof otherwise.

[Rajvik]

Asshole, I'll cop to that, hell, I will even take a bit of pride in that, however i just can't quite see the others. PM me some particulars and i'll point out my thinking.

in this case, I'm sorry but when you are 5 months pregnant you don't start a fight, let alone aggressively pursue the argument to the other persons vehicle. That should be common damn sense because being pregnant is not a shield.

[hazard]

alright, since i cannot seem to get quoting multiple posts to work for some strange reason, ii guess i'm going to have to do this the hard way.

Rob: The reason i did not read the article is this is a case that was covered by the local news, therefore ii didn't feel the express need to. That said, in the state of Alabama, if you do what the woman who was shot did, it is considered aggressive behavior and you are legally able to defend yourself, and yes that includes shooting the other person.

Epsilon: That is your personal opinion, it is not that they got in the argument and the shooter simply pulled a pistol and shot the pregnant woman, the pregnant pursued the first to her vehicle where the shooter then retrieved her gun and shot her. For all we know, threats were made causing the woman to feel threatened and pull the gun out to be able to leave.

Norgarth: No physical violence, but how about threats, did woman A block the ability for B to leave without hitting her and damaging the car? Again, Alabama, my area, arguably the woman was in her right to do so if she felt threatened. and your little looping meme was cute, Home Alone, right? That account you edited in is probably why woman B was initially charged with attempted murder for shooting woman A.

If these are the standards for force escalation in Alabama, Alabama must be a terribly unsafe place to live.

I mean, it appears you can be shot for almost anything in Alabama without any repercussions for the shooter.

Isodecan, Hazard: You two actually have the most legally pertinent argument as you are right, the incident happened two years ago and she is being charged under a law that didn't exist at that time, therefore it will either be laughed out by the judge, (a good lawyer can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich) or on appeal the case will be overturned on that merit alone. 

Well apparently not, given that both woman A and woman B weren't indicted for anything. Or do you mean to tell me that the DAs of Alabama aren't good lawyers?

Now, i'm going to say something, or more accurately point something out, without me here you seem to have something of an echo chamber, one of you says "Oh how horrible X is," a few of you chime in agreeing and then the matter pretty much dies because you are all in agreement. The fact that you have practically no debate on the merits of the issue is questionable in my eyes, therefore sometimes i disagree with you simply to either be contrary or to play devils advocate. On the other hand there are times that I honestly disagree with you, and in all honesty you are not going to be able to tell the difference when i argue the point because i will argue both sides with equal fervor.

That pointed out, and reiterating that i don't agree with Alabama's abortion ban, nor for that matter do i think  that this woman should be charged with anything more than reckless endangerment (of herself and her unborn child), i think you all need to realize that i am not your enemy, i just think differently than you do because of different factors in my life.

Odd. I mean, sure, one should discuss matters on the merits of what is being discussed. It's just that very often there is nothing to merit debate. For the remainder, I'm with Matrix.

Asshole, I'll cop to that, hell, I will even take a bit of pride in that, however i just can't quite see the others. PM me some particulars and i'll point out my thinking.

in this case, I'm sorry but when you are 5 months pregnant you don't start a fight, let alone aggressively pursue the argument to the other persons vehicle. That should be common damn sense because being pregnant is not a shield.

Apparently, it's a shield for assholes to abuse the pregnant woman because she shouldn't get involved in a fight.

[Rajvik]

alright, since i cannot seem to get quoting multiple posts to work for some strange reason, ii guess i'm going to have to do this the hard way.

Rob: The reason i did not read the article is this is a case that was covered by the local news, therefore ii didn't feel the express need to. That said, in the state of Alabama, if you do what the woman who was shot did, it is considered aggressive behavior and you are legally able to defend yourself, and yes that includes shooting the other person.

Epsilon: That is your personal opinion, it is not that they got in the argument and the shooter simply pulled a pistol and shot the pregnant woman, the pregnant pursued the first to her vehicle where the shooter then retrieved her gun and shot her. For all we know, threats were made causing the woman to feel threatened and pull the gun out to be able to leave.

Norgarth: No physical violence, but how about threats, did woman A block the ability for B to leave without hitting her and damaging the car? Again, Alabama, my area, arguably the woman was in her right to do so if she felt threatened. and your little looping meme was cute, Home Alone, right? That account you edited in is probably why woman B was initially charged with attempted murder for shooting woman A.

If these are the standards for force escalation in Alabama, Alabama must be a terribly unsafe place to live.

I mean, it appears you can be shot for almost anything in Alabama without any repercussions for the shooter.

Isodecan, Hazard: You two actually have the most legally pertinent argument as you are right, the incident happened two years ago and she is being charged under a law that didn't exist at that time, therefore it will either be laughed out by the judge, (a good lawyer can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich) or on appeal the case will be overturned on that merit alone. 

Well apparently not, given that both woman A and woman B weren't indicted for anything. Or do you mean to tell me that the DAs of Alabama aren't good lawyers?

Now, i'm going to say something, or more accurately point something out, without me here you seem to have something of an echo chamber, one of you says "Oh how horrible X is," a few of you chime in agreeing and then the matter pretty much dies because you are all in agreement. The fact that you have practically no debate on the merits of the issue is questionable in my eyes, therefore sometimes i disagree with you simply to either be contrary or to play devils advocate. On the other hand there are times that I honestly disagree with you, and in all honesty you are not going to be able to tell the difference when i argue the point because i will argue both sides with equal fervor.

That pointed out, and reiterating that i don't agree with Alabama's abortion ban, nor for that matter do i think  that this woman should be charged with anything more than reckless endangerment (of herself and her unborn child), i think you all need to realize that i am not your enemy, i just think differently than you do because of different factors in my life.

Odd. I mean, sure, one should discuss matters on the merits of what is being discussed. It's just that very often there is nothing to merit debate. For the remainder, I'm with Matrix.

Asshole, I'll cop to that, hell, I will even take a bit of pride in that, however i just can't quite see the others. PM me some particulars and i'll point out my thinking.

in this case, I'm sorry but when you are 5 months pregnant you don't start a fight, let alone aggressively pursue the argument to the other persons vehicle. That should be common damn sense because being pregnant is not a shield.

Apparently, it's a shield for assholes to abuse the pregnant woman because she shouldn't get involved in a fight.

Actually Alabama is a pretty damn safe place to live, i would have to look up statistics, but i bet the state has a lower murder rate than say Illinois (which i chose because they appear to have arguably the same land area and both have some large cities)

As for "Indictments" i will have to delve deeper, but i think charges were initially followed for both women, and the State DA declined to follow in the first, and is in the process of deciding on the second, Grand Jury Indictments were pursued by lesser ADA's and attained. Again i would have to dig deeper to verify.

Just because you feel there are no merits to argue does not make that true, there is always another side to the story. YOU may not agree with it, YOU may not believe it, but it is there.

Finally, this last one, that is a bullshit argument and you damn well know it. I didn't say get involved in a fight, i said START A FIGHT, and then AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE it when the other person attempts to leave.

[classicdrogn]

I think before getting worked up (and not just Rajvik, both sides) I'd like to clarify: Did the incident happen BEFORE or AFTER the new laws were passed? If AFTER, then they have a case by state law, and (dear stars I hope) smacking them in the nose with a rolled up newspaper like a dog who shat on the carpet may have to wait for a federal court, depending on the judge. If BEFORE then there is absolutely no legal basis to prosecute the woman, and possibly some to bring suit against the state because that's specifically forbidden by the US Constitution.

Just look at the frowny side of this face, and think about how you want to stay on the other:

(source) (rehosted because xeviantfart is being a dick today)


Anyway, let's try to keep the name calling to a minimum, okay? I'm not any kind of admin, but I can still suggest everyone take a few minutes away and reread your posts before hitting send. Calm and civil is always going to find a more receptive audience.

[Rajvik]

Before, (the incident happened 2 years ago) which is why I said that Isodecan and Hazard had the most pertinent arguments as the law is not allowed to be applied retroactively. That said, arguably they could go for a lesser included charge of reckless endangerment as she aggressively pursued the argument fully knowing that she was five months pregnant. Its also arguably willful disregard of the life of another (the unborn) again by pursuing the argument as aggressively as she did

[hazard]

Actually Alabama is a pretty damn safe place to live, i would have to look up statistics, but i bet the state has a lower murder rate than say Illinois (which i chose because they appear to have arguably the same land area and both have some large cities)

Nope: According to Wikipedia Illinois has an, admittedly slight, lower murder rate than Alabama does, averaging about 0.5 less murders per 100 000 inhabitants per year. Although quite frankly, with an approximate murder rate more than 10 times as much as my homeland's, I think I'm not going to either state any time soon.

As for "Indictments" i will have to delve deeper, but i think charges were initially followed for both women, and the State DA declined to follow in the first, and is in the process of deciding on the second, Grand Jury Indictments were pursued by lesser ADA's and attained. Again i would have to dig deeper to verify.

In accordance to the DA's office guidelines I'd expect, because otherwise, why have a District Attorney in the first place if their assistants and deputies act counter to those guidelines.

Just because you feel there are no merits to argue does not make that true, there is always another side to the story. YOU may not agree with it, YOU may not believe it, but it is there.

When the other side is basing its arguments on known false statements, there is no merit to argue on.

Finally, this last one, that is a bullshit argument and you damn well know it. I didn't say get involved in a fight, i said START A FIGHT, and then AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE it when the other person attempts to leave.

Then please, explain under what circumstances should a pregnant woman get involved in a fight.

[Dartz]

It does seem strange to me.

It seems like the law will set some sort of precedent.

Have a car accident wheile 5 months pregant. Lose the baby. Go to prison.
Fall down some stairs while 5 months pregnant, Lose the baby. Go to prison.

I mean, where the fuck is the line drawn? Or do we, y'know, just lock pregnant women in a oubliette for 9 months or something?

[Matrix Dragon]

I mean, where the fuck is the line drawn? Or do we, y'know, just lock pregnant women in a oubliette for 9 months or something?

That's what some of them want. That, and a nice collection of babies to adopt with no memory of where they came from. Seriously, a lot of 'Christian' groups have been taught for over a century that they are doing Gods work by taking the children of minorities away and raising them 'proper'. At the same time though, it's not really done for the children. Their fate after birth doesn't actually MATTER to the people that follow this dogma. It's a large part of why they will move heaven and earth to force a birth, but refuse to offer any support afterwards. Nazi Germany was fond of blond jewish girls they'd rename Eva. Here in Australia, we had the Stolen Generation, which was decades of indigenous children being taken by force from their parents, legally, and then transferring them into an orphanage system with a nightmarish death rate of children under five. To this day, there are people that will argue, with a smile on their face, that those people were doing the will of God and the Australian Government made a terrible mistake in admitting it was wrong. I suspect you can think of a variant in Ireland Dartz.

That's what's so terrifying about this. It is a system of belief that has infected countless European descended cultures for centuries. Blatant cruelty, with the people behind it so blinded by their fanaticism they can't see it. Once upon a time, before widespread birth control and sex education, it was often simply a matter of controlling the facilities for unwed pregnant people, refuse to offer any support if they wanted to keep the child, then use the orphanages to cherry pick the 'pretty children'.  Most of the modern cruelty from places like Alabama comes from people trying to restore those old systems in some way, because they were raised to believe such things are Right and Proper.

[robkelk]

I mean, where the fuck is the line drawn? Or do we, y'know, just lock pregnant women in a oubliette for 9 months or something?

That's what some of them want. That, and a nice collection of babies to adopt with no memory of where they came from. Seriously, a lot of 'Christian' groups have been taught for over a century that they are doing Gods work by taking the children of minorities away and raising them 'proper'. At the same time though, it's not really done for the children. Their fate after birth doesn't actually MATTER to the people that follow this dogma. It's a large part of why they will move heaven and earth to force a birth, but refuse to offer any support afterwards. Nazi Germany was fond of blond jewish girls they'd rename Eva. Here in Australia, we had the Stolen Generation, which was decades of indigenous children being taken by force from their parents, legally, and then transferring them into an orphanage system with a nightmarish death rate of children under five. To this day, there are people that will argue, with a smile on their face, that those people were doing the will of God and the Australian Government made a terrible mistake in admitting it was wrong. I suspect you can think of a variant in Ireland Dartz.

I can think of two in Canada. First, the residential schools. They were run by both the federal government and various Christian churches, and their purpose was to "beat the Indian out of the child" - yes, that's a direct quote, although it was only ever used behind closed doors. Second, the "Sixties Scoop" of taking indigenous children away from their families and sending them for adoption to be raised in white families.

The government has apologized for its part in this (let's not mince words) genocide, and has begun to make amends. The churches... a few have apologized, many have not, and amends have not yet begun to appear.

The only difference I see between the policies of Canada and Australia then and what's happening to women in the "Bible Belt" of the USA now is that the latter is being done retail, not wholesale.

That's what's so terrifying about this. It is a system of belief that has infected countless European descended cultures for centuries. Blatant cruelty, with the people behind it so blinded by their fanaticism they can't see it. Once upon a time, before widespread birth control and sex education, it was often simply a matter of controlling the facilities for unwed pregnant people, refuse to offer any support if they wanted to keep the child, then use the orphanages to cherry pick the 'pretty children'.  Most of the modern cruelty from places like Alabama comes from people trying to restore those old systems in some way, because they were raised to believe such things are Right and Proper.

Likewise in Canada. For example, the party in power in Alberta right now sees no reason to consult with the native people who live on the land that the government wants to build a pipeline across, for example. It's a case of thinking it's Right and Proper to take what they want from the non-whites. It sure looks from here that they don't think non-whites are people.

[DHBirr]

By the way, it seems Tucker Carlson of FAUX (Fear And Unlimited Xenophobia) Noise feels that even though the North Korean regime is evil and disgusting, it's doing what it has to do.  

"...what it means to lead a country; it means killing people."

No, Schmucker Carlson; lots of countries' leaders do very well without murdering their own citizens for not applauding loudly enough.