July 31, 2012
-
Man Murders Baby But Will Not Be Charged
One of the women involved in the Batman shooting miscarried today. She miscarried because of being shot. She also lost her 6 year old child in the shooting.
But there is good news for the shooter. In Colorado a person can not be charged for the murder of an unborn baby. You can only be charged for homicide if the person you killed is one “who had been born and alive.”
Clearly the unborn baby does not fall into that category. Here is the link: Link
So remember serial killers, if you go on a shooting. . .
Aim for the belly
Not the child holding the hand.
Should the shooter be charged for the murder of the unborn child?
Comments (41)
Yes. And I know all the abortion arguments there but it’s not the same. He took her fetus away from her through a violent act and against her will. If not murder, that should be a separate charge of something. I heard at first the fetus survived and was so sad to hear this.
Yes!!
That just breaks my heart. *sigh*. Just disgusting and terrible. My heart goes out to her…
YES! Absolutely.
Overpopulation is a problem. Maybe he was just doing his civic duties.
I wonder if I got knocked up and got giant fake tits if that would make me semi bullet proof.
hahahahaha! oh dan….
Yes, it is murder in my state! Causing a woman to miscarry or give birth to a still-born through a violent act, is always murder. All day, every day it is murder. We should set aside our silly notions about abortion and not let violent offenders get away with murder.
Right, and women who miscarry by tumbling down the stairs should be charged with manslaughter.
I recommend Celestial Teapot’s and E&A’s statement. Whoever pushed her is liable.
Yes, he should. There was life, growing inside that woman, and that tiny baby’s life was taken away, before it got the chance to live.
That is so sad. Losing your baby is hard enough, losing it because of some asshole with a firearm seems so much worse to me. That jerk deserves to fry.
I am pro-choice. That shouldn’t be relevant in my stance on this but I imagine someone will make it so.
He should be charged for the murder of this baby. Plain and simple.
Now, if I’m pro-choice and, therefore, okay with abortion if that is the mother’s decision, what makes this different, when clearly an unborn baby ceases to exist in both situations? The DIFFERENCE is…abortion is the mother’s decision. She has to sign documents, she gets time to think about it, and it’s ultimately her decision because she is the one who has to live with it. But THIS? This man made the decision for her. She didn’t get to give the okay, she didn’t get to think about it. But you know what? She’s still going to be the one who has to live with it…AND the fact he killed her walking, talking, moving about independently of the mother child, as well.
In most states, if a woman is murdered and she was pregnant and the baby dies, the murderer is charged with two counts. In most states. Perhaps it’s completely different in each state whether the mother was murdered or not. Perhaps if the mother died, thus the fetus dying, as well, then he would be charged for both mother and child…who knows?
@Celestial_Teapot - You can do better than that. A woman falling down the stairs is an accident. This was a guy with a gun purposely shooting at people.
@musterion99 - Yeah– hence the manslaughter/murder distinction.
this is depressing.
No.
And here’s why: Moral and spiritual outrage aside, the law recognizes a person as one who is born and breathing. No one gets taxed, or tax breaks on an child within the womb. No census counts a child within the womb. A child is not legally recognized as a person until born.
Laws can be created (and some states DO have them) that recognize a child within the womb as a person, when taking into account violent acts. But – one runs into the same dilemma as the abortion topic: At what point in the pregnancy would you charge someone with murder?
And just to toss in one more curiosity. If the law did recognize a child as being a person at conception – what do we do with all the frozen embryos that couples have set aside for fertility purposes. Are they imprisoned in a similar fashion as chaining a child in a closet?
This is really ridiculous. How can they not charge him for killing the unborn baby? It’s alive and inside the mother! WTF?!
Any violent act should be prosecuted.
Personally, I would like to see him charged for it.
Honestly? I know that he shouldn’t be. I agree with @BookMark61 . The man chose to pick up a gun, a mother chooses to end the life inside her with abortion… if you want to consider the baby as a separate life you can’t have it both ways.
Would you charge someone with murder for taking off an arm? a PIECE of a person? Because that is how the baby is considered (in the woman) which allows for abortion. “It is the mother’s body, it is the mother’s choice.”
By pressing for the presecution of the shooter in this way, it is hypocritical. It is not the law. It is personal opinion and moral conviction which I happen to agree with but again… you can not have it both ways. If the law is considered outrageous for this, it must be reconsidered in other ways as well. I am not opposed to that either.
And the Xanga abortion wars begin! (Again.)
I was so busy answering I didn’t even realize I was first to comment on one of your blogs! First time ever I think!
yes, depending on how far it is devellopped. If abortion isn’t allowed bc it is a human from a certain age, and premature babies can be saved by doctors and count as, well, babies , it shouldn’t matter whether it’s still inside her or not. This is so damn sad, really.
If it’s younger than the ‘abortion age’ I think there still should be some form of punishment. Not that it’d change anything in this case, but if it’s about justice for the victims this should be respected.
Ah, nothing like cheap appeals to emotion to bring clarity to a difficult and nuanced debate.
@ShimmerBodyCream - There’s only one way to find out.
Yes. Absolutely.
@EmilyandAtticus - Pretty much sums up how I see it. No matter which side of the abortion debate someone is one, this woman still had her unborn baby taken from her against her will. Making it a separate charge but still acknowledging it as a crime would at least acknowledge to this woman (or any woman who ends up in the same situation) that she’s been wronged, and it’s not leaning toward either extreme of the abortion debate.
But at this point, James Holmes has been charged with so many counts of murder and attempted murder that whether or not he’s charged with one more isn’t going to influence how long he’s locked up or whether or not he gets the death penalty. It looks like the only thing that can save him from either life imprisonment or execution is if he successfully gets an insanity defense. So while I would love to see it acknowledged that this baby was, in fact, murdered, the conviction isn’t going to change what will happen to the killer.
What difference is it going to make in his sentencing, though? He’s killed so many.
I am currently 9 weeks pregnant. The baby in my belly has eyes, ears, and a heart rate of around 160. He/she is alive. In a society where one can decide to terminate a pregnancy for themselves, it’s no surprise that the shooter cannot be charged with murder, homocide or even manslaughter in this case, but I do not think it is right. If the shooting was the direct cause of the miscarry, (or even stress related to witnessing the tragic event) I think he should ABSOLUTELY be held responsible for the termination of that life. Unfortunately, the majority of voters have decided that a a baby is not a “person” until they have been born. We should all get to the poles and change such laws and also encourage others to do the same. Life begins at conception, and God knows that. <3 Suz
hogtie and flamebroil the creep alive! if he wants to play evil, then prepare to endure evil consequences. let’s see how much he loves to be torched by satan!
@PoetMcChick - Well said! ^..^
Only if state law says that you’re alive once conceived. I think it’s stupid to say abortion is okay but only if it’s a doctor doing it, if not then it’s murder. The two laws should reconcile each other.
@SolidStateTheory - You’re an idiot.
since there is yet no definitive time point when a fetus becomes a baby… or in this case, a group of cells into a human being… you either start at conception(anti-abortion views) or when the baby is born(pro-abortion views)…
since this varies from state to state… you have to go by the laws of that state. no matter how idiotic it sounds at times.
that’s just how it is.
it’s stupid. it’s wrong. but it’s the legalistic society that we live in.
luckily, or unluckily, there are plenty of other people/children that were murdered that night, so it’s kinda a moot point; granted, for that unfortunate mother, she still lost 2 children that night. no label or ‘fetus’ or whatever is going to take that pain away from that mother.
i feel for her.
some women i’ve met, take abortion quite seriously. the personal tales i hear, it’s a traumatizing effect. i think for most of us, those women are not what we are worried about, when we think abortion. it’s the women who use abortion like you do an aspirin when you have a headache, that we as a moral nation, ponder the deeper question between liberty, health, and our overall morality as a nation and country taking care of the women in our society.
Yes, he should be charged with murder, but I half suspect he won’t. And with the abortion laws in certain states, should he? And are people aware of 9/11 or any other crap from our government? I bet not. So, more innocents in other countries will perish, along with our own, who are sent through Military.
@MayoKetchup - Care to explain how it’s stupid or wrong? Honestly?
……that’s B.S. in the smelliest form….. He should be charged and hung by the neck until……?? Peace
laws in every state vary, but this is such an interesting topic that should bring about change.
my heart goes out to the woman who lost her unborn child =[
Yes.
He should be charged for the unborn baby, without question.
@BookMark61 - I appreciate your point about the relationship between the citizen and the government. But people who visit the US (apart from sales tax), namely non-citizens-non-residents, don’t get taxed or tax breaks, but they still have “inalienable” rights. They are protected by the police, though they pay no local or state taxes. They are still persons though no one records them in the census. …Maybe it’d be worth it to consider prenatal infants non-citizens(-non-residents?) until birth, but still persons.
Yes…