Originally Posted by Persephone The Dread
She was arrested for manslaughter, not attacking a woman (and since no in depth details of that were given I'm also somewhat skeptical tbh. Comments from the police about how 'the only victim here was the feotus' are a bit suspicious too.)
I mean I've grown up in a culture where guns are illegal and that obviously biases my opinion somewhat but did she have a weapon too? How hard is it to get away from a pregnant woman without resorting to shooting her in the first place? People get into fights here and they'll maybe get fined or nothing much will happen if nobody is seriously injured.
Like from my pov it's like... You shot her, you already used more force then was probably necessary and you got away with that, so it's over now.
edit: at like best legally if you consider fetuses protected you could say this is negligence.
Then again, from the shooter's perspective, it is completely plausible that she was protecting herself/close ones from it. (It doesn't become evident, that for example she didn't have a child of her own with her, which, at least I, would be afraid for at such a situation - and defend myself and my loved ones in whatever means I saw necessary).
It is also possible that the gun was, at first, intended to scare her away - which didn't work.
If you have a weapon, and someone keeps coming at you, for the sake of everyone you need to put them down (hopefully in a manner that is not fatal), because fighting over a gun may end much worse.
There seems to be much speculation, and I don't think the articles provide enough evidence to speculate much; someone attacked someone, got shot in self-defense.
You can argue that shooting in self-defense is too much, but defending in some other way could result in even worse results.
(For example the victim instead becoming paralyzed below the neck and the child still dying, not rare when you hit your head on a fall?)
I'm not defending the shooter here; I'm trying to point out that not enough context is provided to know what the situation exactly was, and therefore judge whether or not it was actually self-defense.
I do believe that an attacker is for the most part responsible for whatever is deemed necessary to defend the attack; You always CHOOSE to attack, whereas the defendor may not have an option but to use violence against you, or they might risk injury or death (and they do not know how far you're going - will you stop once they lose consqiousness? Will you leave them in a bloody mess, to die? Will you kick them in the head once they're down until their brains splatter on the concrete? These are things you need to consider when you're under attack).
The charge on her is a bit difficult to decide on; if you are responsible for the safety of another being, then you should act in a manner that does not set them in danger (at least due to your actions)... So I guess it is about whether or not you are responsible for a child before it is born. This is an issue that is very difficult to draw a line on once you start to think about it, instead of just going full-on outrage.
Agree on the laws being ridiculous, so I'm not going to comment any more on them, though.