Alabama woman indicted for manslaughter after miscarrying when shot because she started the fight

God bless Alabama!

An Alabama woman who suffered a miscarriage after being shot last year has been indicted for manslaughter in the loss of the fetus.

Marshae Jones was five months pregnant in December 2018 when, during a fight, Ebony Jemison shot her in the stomach —

but a Jefferson County grand jury said the former mom-to-be was responsible because she started the brawl, AL.com reported.

“Let’s not lose sight that the unborn baby is the victim here,’’ said Pleasant Grove Police Lt. Danny Reid.

Initially, police charged Jemison, 23, with manslaughter but the charges were dismissed when a grand jury didn’t indict her.

Even though Jones didn’t fire the shots that killed her unborn baby girl, authorities said she caused the death by initiating the fight.

“It was the mother of the child who initiated and continued the fight which resulted in the death of her own unborn baby,” Reid said.

“[The fetus] had no choice in being brought unnecessarily into a fight where she was relying on her mother for protection.”

Cops said the fight was about the unborn baby’s father.

Jones was taken into custody Wednesday. She will be transferred to Jefferson County Jail and held on $50,000 bond.

A life was lost because of the mother’s irresponsible behaviour.

Too bad they couldn’t also charge the other woman, too, though.

But a great precedent has been set!

Advertisements

 

Denver set to decriminalize shrooms

Interesting.

Denver is poised to become the first city in the nation to effectively decriminalize psychedelic mushrooms.

After closing an early vote deficit Tuesday night and early Wednesday, final unofficial results posted late in the afternoon showed a reversal of fortune — with Initiative 301 set to pass narrowly with 50.6 percent of the vote. The total stands at 89,320 votes in favor and 87,341 against, a margin of 1,979.

The Denver Elections Division will continue accepting military and overseas ballots, but typically those numbers are small. Results will be certified May 16.

[…]

The measure essentially tells police to look the other way on adult psilocybin use.

I am not opposed to this – I am libertarian on allowing adults to decide these sorts of things for themselves, same as other risky endeavours like bungee-jumping, cliff-climbing, etc. – but I am highly cynical about the powers that be using such things to distract the masses while ignoring more urgent matters. It always seems that bread-and-circuses measures, like this, legalized weed or buck-a-beer, more casinos, etc. sail through easily while there remains an inability or more accurately lack of will to solve a million more pressing issues.

But that does not surprise, of course.

 

Monstrously, Nova Scotia introduces presumed organ donation consent upon death, unless one opts out

Your dead body belongs to the Province, Nova Scotians:

Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil tabled legislation that will make the province the first jurisdiction in North America to have presumed consent for organ and tissue donation.

People will be able to opt out of donating their organs, but the onus will be on them to do so once the bill is proclaimed. The bill would not apply to people younger than 19 or those who do not have the ability to consent for themselves.

[…]

The idea for presumed consent started gaining traction almost 15 years ago, he said. Several other countries, including Belgium and Spain, already use the system.

This is monstrous.

It’s backwards. Your body should be presumed to be yours, unless you specifically consent to organ donation.

I would expect this in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, or present-day commie China and North Korea.

It has no place in an ostensible liberal democracy like Canada.

 

What to tell any prog twit who engages in whataboutism in response to newcomer criminality

America breeds it own criminals just fine. Why do you see the need to import them from abroad? https://t.co/hglCgLBWUQ

— Kevin Michael Grace🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇮🇪⚜🇳🇴 (@KMGVictoria) January 26, 2019

 

The difference between Bernier and Scheer

Andrew Scheer doesn’t want to reduce the number of immigrants, he wants to spend more on services to welcome them.

Q: “Are there too many immigrants coming into Canada?”

Scheer: “It's not a question of too much, it's a question of ‘Are our services ready to welcome them?’” https://t.co/MAvMA657ww

— Maxime Bernier (@MaximeBernier) January 22, 2019

 

New York Muslims have a new security patrol group – which makes them like other minority groups there…

Interesting, this:
 

 

New York’s Muslim community has a new security group watching over it.

A car from the new Muslim Community Patrol has been spotted around the city, joining the Jewish enclave’s Shomrim and the Brooklyn Asian Safety Patrol among New York’s culture-specific security groups.

The white Ford Taurus bears insignia nearly identical to those of an NYPD patrol car — with blue horizontal stripes down the sides, a shield on the front driver’s side door and the words “Muslim Community Patrol” descending on the rear door, where a department vehicle would say “Courtesy Professionalism Respect.”

The vehicle was recently spotted cruising along Fifth Avenue in Brooklyn’s Bay Ridge, home to a burgeoning Muslim population.

 
So, the Muslims of New York are just doing what other minority groups have already done…

Expect more of this, as time goes on; the wages of diversity and multiculturalism…

 

A couple thoughts on yesterday’s post…

Regarding this…

(a) Seeing their social conservatism, reinforces my a priori belief that social conservatives’ attempt to invite newcomers from non-Western, non-Christian cultures to join them in existing conservative parties is a non-starter, because (a) they will instead generally vote for their interests in terms of bringing more of their own kind over by supporting pro-immigration and particularly liberal and leftist parties that are guaranteed to keep the floodgates open, and (b) now they have a choice to vote for their own kind of parties like this one, which represent social conservatism coupled with their religious worldview as well; why would they bother to join forces with white, Christian social conservatives in pre-existing conservative parties?

(b) I see they reference the ‘dead letter’ portion of the Charter, the part that legal experts will tell you has no actual bearing on our laws; you know, the preamble recognizing that Canada is built on principles recognizing the supremacy of God and the rule of law. Kudos to them for doing so, taking it seriously. We should, too. We should actually do better and go back to the preamble in the Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960:

The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;

Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;

And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, in a Bill of Rights which shall reflect the respect of Parliament for its constitutional authority and which shall ensure the protection of these rights and freedoms in Canada:

Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

And instead of it being a ‘dead letter’, it should carry the force of law just as much as all the rest of the Act does.

Why the hell not?