Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Desertdog on April 24, 2009, 11:46:53 AM
-
When protecting their baby, they will also be protecting their selves. Self defense should never be a reason to face trial.
Protect your unborn baby - okay in OK
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=501268
Oklahoma has become the first state to give a pregnant woman the right to use force to defend her unborn child.
Under the "Use of Force for the Protection of the Unborn Act" -- signed into law by Governor Brad Henry -- a mom-to-be is legally justified in using deadly force if she "reasonably believes" an attacker is "threatening her unborn child" and "use of force or deadly force are immediately necessary to protect" that child.
The law was actually prompted by an incident in Michigan, according to Maressa Treat, Oklahoma state director of Americans United for Life (AUL). "There was a lady who was attacked -- she was pregnant with triplets, and she ended up losing her babies," she explains. "The attacker ended up dying, and she was convicted."
The conviction was later successfully appealed, but Treat tells OneNewsNow the incident sent shock waves all the way to Oklahoma.
"Oklahoma has the highest rate per capita of violence against pregnant women," she says. "So it's incredibly important that we are not only going out and saying that we're going to protect life, but that we make the proper steps to protect all life."
The legislation was developed by Americans United for Life, but it is available for any state to consider. An AUL press release argues that every pregnant woman in America "deserves the right to protect her unborn child from violence and harm."
-
I am not sure I understand. How can you be a threat to an unborn baby without also being a threat to the mother?
-
I am not sure I understand. How can you be a threat to an unborn baby without also being a threat to the mother?
Don't know the specifics of the attack, but if you re-read the article you will discover that there was a case where a pregnant woman defended herself with deadly force and was convicted for killing her attacker even though the attacker killed her babies.
Sounds like the new law is designed to protect (from legal charges) attacked women in this (rare) situation.
-
Don't know the specifics of the attack, but if you re-read the article you will discover that there was a case where a pregnant woman defended herself with deadly force and was convicted for killing her attacker even though the attacker killed her babies.
Call me crazy, but I'm surprised they managed to get a conviction. Damage enough to cause a miscarriage is what I'd call serious injury, and the fact he DID it puts it beyond 'threat'.
I'll note that it WAS successfully appealed, but still.
Oh, and I'd say killing in self defense can quite correctly end up in court. I'd say that it's a defense against murder charges, and if the circumstances are iffy enough, it should go to trial.
-
I don't really get this one either. I think it may be pandering to the anti-abortion crowd a bit. Oklahoma self defense law already recognizes the right to use of deadly force to prevent serious bodily harm. An attack severe enough to cause damage to a unborn child or casue a miscarriage in my thinking would carry a risk of serious bodily harm.
-
If you're crazy we both are.
I thought Maressa Treat was the attacked, but in fact she was just telling the story. I'm wondering if the triplet story actually happened.
-
I thought Maressa Treat was the attacked, but in fact she was just telling the story. I'm wondering if the triplet story actually happened.
I believe I found the case in question:
Defense of Fetus (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Defense-of-fetus+theory+allowed+in+manslaughter+case%3B+mother's...-a096893897)
Kurr killed her boyfriend, Antonio Pena, after he allegedly punched her twice in the stomach. She told police that she informed him she was pregnant, and when he tried to hit her again, she stabbed him out of fear that he would harm the fetus. Before trial, Kalamazoo County Circuit Judge Richard Lamb granted her motion to present testimony and argue a "defense of others" theory. Kurr presented evidence that Pena had abused her before, that she received positive pregnancy-test results while in police custody, and that she suffered a miscarriage
-
The new law http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/SB/sb1103_sflr.rtf states that only the pregnant woman, under certain restrictions, is justified in using force or deadly force in protecting herself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be threatening her unborn child (no mention of a threat to the life of the unborn child). The act does not apply to the acts of others (who may be attempting to defend the life of the unborn child, or to the mother if she is required to retreat, surrender the possession of a thing, or comply with a demand before using deadly force.
So what we have here is an addition to the common law concept of justifiable homicide in defense of self - when that defense of self is applied to the defense of another.
Sweet suffering baby jeebus! They can't even make up their minds what they are justifying! And the affirmative defense can only be claimed by one specific group of citizens, who are only temporarily members of the definded group!
Calling El Teon - you will be able to recover all costs of relocation and loss of former clients if you move to Oklahoma and only take cases related to this law. I'm only asking 1/10th of 1% of your fees for suggesting this career change to you. =D
Skakespeare had it wrong - we need to kill the legislators. (Yes, I know that was his intent when he wrote that line.)
stay safe.
skidmark
edited for typos
-
Don't quote this as gospel, but I THINK an attack can be severe enough to harm the fetus without actually being severe enough against the mother to justify deadly force (in many peoples' minds). And I'd guess that's what this law is aimed at: clearing up that ambiguity...
I will say that I can see this law being used as a defense for violence by the extreme fringe of the pro-life movement ("I was attempting to protect unborn children"). Probably not successfully, but I can see it being attempted...
-
Don't quote this as gospel, but I THINK an attack can be severe enough to harm the fetus without actually being severe enough against the mother to justify deadly force (in many peoples' minds). And I'd guess that's what this law is aimed at: clearing up that ambiguity...
I will say that I can see this law being used as a defense for violence by the extreme fringe of the pro-life movement ("I was attempting to protect unborn children"). Probably not successfully, but I can see it being attempted...
From what vaskidmark said, it sounds like they were attempting to prevent this law from being used as justification by an anti-abortion extremist. I was a bit concerned about that myself. It would be hard to imagine any legislator not considering that angle.
-
>It would be hard to imagine any legislator not considering that angle.<
You haven't dealt with many legiscritters, have you? ;)
Not considering the impact of something is about the only thing most are good at!
-
I will say that I can see this law being used as a defense for violence by the extreme fringe of the pro-life movement ("I was attempting to protect unborn children"). Probably not successfully, but I can see it being attempted...
The new law http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/SB/sb1103_sflr.rtf states that only the pregnant woman, under certain restrictions, is justified in using force or deadly force in protecting herself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be threatening her unborn child (no mention of a threat to the life of the unborn child). The act does not apply to the acts of others (who may be attempting to defend the life of the unborn child, or to the mother if she is required to retreat, surrender the possession of a thing, or comply with a demand before using deadly force.
Maybe the reason it is written as a defense ONLY for the mother is to protect abortion doctors from third-party violence.
If that is the case, it could have been written better, as it is written now, it leaves out a third party defending the woman from a real attack, not that this is a likely scenario. . .
-
It really needs to be decided once and for all by everyone whether or not the collection of cells/baby growing inside a woman is a person or not. This law protects it like it is, but abortion law says it's not.
/I'm pretty set on my answer, but the debate still looms. How can something be human enough for a mother to protect with deadly force, but not be human enough for others to protect from death and dismemberment by acid burning/vacuum? The two sets of laws just do not jive in any way.
-
Is being punched in the stomach usually grounds for using deadly force? I personally think so, but I'm not a lawyer who's job is convicting people of things. I can see actions resulting in a miscarriage not being clear grounds for a good shoot (according to the local DA).
-
Is being punched in the stomach usually grounds for using deadly force? I personally think so, but I'm not a lawyer who's job is convicting people of things. I can see actions resulting in a miscarriage not being clear grounds for a good shoot (according to the local DA).
It does not need to actually result in misscarrige, let alone any lesser harm to the fetus. All it requires is for a "reasonable pregnant woman" to believe that it may cause serious bodily injury or death, or less, to the fetus. [Here is where I assert, affirm, and take oath that I am NOT going to even broach the subject of "reasonable pregnant woman" and raging, changing hormones. Nope! Not going there. Ladysmith, put down that boot - I said I was not going to even begin to think about thinking about that subject.]
As I mentioned, "Sweet suffering baby jeebus! They can't even make up their minds what they are justifying! And the affirmative defense can only be claimed by one specific group of citizens, who are only temporarily members of the defined group!"
I am more concerned about how the legal bright minds sitting in constitutional judgement will view the severe limitation on who can claim this justifiable defense to homicide, and the severe limits as to when that claim can be asserted.
Yes, I did consider the whole issue of when does a mass of cells attain personhood for the purpose of ability to claim the protection of the laws. I gave up on that line of thought because of the more clearly debatable issue of the limits placed on being able to assert this defense of self in defense of other can of worms, along with the inability of anyone but the pregnant lady being able to assert this defense in defense of the health of the fetus. (For those of you who missed it, the baby-father cannot assert this defense if he uses deadly force against a person he reasonably believes might harm the baby-momma's fetus by attacking the baby-momma.)
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Ok, my brain hurts now...
-
Ok, my brain hurts now...
My work here is done.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Motion to banschwerk vaskidmark :P
-
Ok vaskidmark, you know I had my throwing arm cocked, right? :laugh:
Why didn't the Kurr trial center around self-defense? I get that the woman may have felt her own life wasn't worth defending. I've read that plenty of abused women feel that they're worthless. I'm wondering why her lawyer(s) allowed the unborn child to become a separate issue in the first place. She had to defend herself in order to defend her child, yes? Why not stick with that in the hope of getting her set free at best or a lesser sentence at worst?
So now there's a specific law stating that only a pregnant woman can use deadly force to protect her unborn child. Nobody, not even baby-daddies, can do that, just the mom.
Allow me to get stoopid with it…
What if CCW baby-daddy comes home, finds his baby-mama recently deceased and the crazy-lady neighbor preparing to remove the still living baby with a kitchen knife. He'd have to wait until the C-section via homicide is complete before he can take action "to protect others" since he can't use lethal force to protect his unborn child, right?
What if baby-mama believes her unborn baby's life is threatened, manages to kill the person causing the threat and then decides to have an abortion midway through her trial? Totally legal, but…
-
Why didn't the Kurr trial center around self-defense? I get that the woman may have felt her own life wasn't worth defending. I've read that plenty of abused women feel that they're worthless. I'm wondering why her lawyer(s) allowed the unborn child to become a separate issue in the first place. She had to defend herself in order to defend her child, yes? Why not stick with that in the hope of getting her set free at best or a lesser sentence at worst?
Because she did not believe she personally was in danger of death or grevious bodily injury (the usual standard for justifying/excusing the use of lethal force. Thus, she had no justification/excuse for defending herself with lethal force against the attacker. Keep up, woman, or I'm going to have to suggest you keep up with the facts of the case. [I can see all the shoes you are collecting, but I know you won't throw them.]
She had to defend herself in order to defend her child, yes?
See above - the answer to your question is unequivocally "No!"
So now there's a specific law stating that only a pregnant woman can use deadly force to protect her unborn child. Nobody, not even baby-daddies, can do that, just the mom.
Allow me to get stoopid with it…
Why should we allow you to get stoopid with it when the Legislature has done such a good job without your assistance. Not that I doubt for a moment that you could do at least as good a job, if not better than the Legislature. [Did I just sign my death warrant?]
What if CCW baby-daddy comes home, finds his baby-mama recently deceased and the crazy-lady neighbor preparing to remove the still living baby with a kitchen knife. He'd have to wait until the C-section via homicide is complete before he can take action "to protect others" since he can't use lethal force to protect his unborn child, right?
Not even applicable, as the crazy lady with the kitchen knife is not only not threatening the life of the as-yet unborn child, the crazy lady is actually in the process of trying to save the life of the unborn child. In order to threaten the life of the as-yet unborn child, the crazy lady would need to be either stabbing at the belly in an attempt to pierce through to the fetus, or be fending off baby-daddy or the paramedics who were themselves trying to perform a field-expedient c-section. But as to your "he can't use lethal force to protect his unborn child, right?" - exactamundo! Glad to see you are following the flow of this law. =D
What if baby-mama believes her unborn baby's life is threatened, manages to kill the person causing the threat and then decides to have an abortion midway through her trial? Totally legal, but…
But what? This law gives her an affirmative defense, and Roe v. Wade says she can do whatever her little heart desires at least through the first trimester, and imposes only a few limitations during the second trimester.
You know, I'm gonna love parsing this law. There are just so many opportunities to seem like I'm going off my meds when in reality I'm so firmly grounded in reality it's actually scary. :angel: I'll face your banschwerk any day, and laugh at it, to boot!
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Skidmark, I would so throw some shoes at you if all of your legalese hadn't made me so dizzy! :laugh:
Just you wait until the courtroom in my head stops spinning. :lol:
-
Skidmark, I would so throw some shoes at you if all of your legalese hadn't made me so dizzy! :laugh:
Just you wait until the courtroom in my head stops spinning. :lol:
Help! I'm laughing and can't get up.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
From what vaskidmark said, it sounds like they were attempting to prevent this law from being used as justification by an anti-abortion extremist.
It's not that hard to do. Though Texas doesn't specify it under defense of a third party, the wording from our murder statutes is simple and clear:
TX PC 19.06 APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is:
(1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child;
(2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure;
(3) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section 160.102, Family Code;
Note that, given the exceptions above, the legislature clearly intended that an unborn child be considered a person, (and would also make the defense of third party justifications for use of force or deadly force applicable) which would make 19.03 (Capital Murder) apply:
19.03(a)(7) the person murders more than one person:
(A) during the same criminal transaction; or
(B) during different criminal transactions but the murders are committed pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct;
( 8 ) the person murders an individual under six years of age;
-
KD5NRH - it's not an issue of who can be charged with killing, or trying to kill, the unborn child. It's all about the baby-momma being the only one who can be justifiably excused for using deadly lethal force in protecting the unborn baby from those who are trying to kill it.
While I have not and will not bother to look up OK law, I feel confident that there is some oprovision there that says it is all right for the baby-momma to decide she wants to quit that role before the natural end of pregnancy, and that if she seeks the assistance of licensed medical personnel in reaching that goal neither she nor they violate the murder law(s).
We need to stay on point here, or Ladysmith will end up perfused and complexed without having access to a hormonal defense. If that happens, I will not allow anyone to blame me for the collateral damage done by errant shoes.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
KD5NRH - it's not an issue of who can be charged with killing, or trying to kill, the unborn child. It's all about the baby-momma being the only one who can be justifiably excused for using deadly lethal force in protecting the unborn baby from those who are trying to kill it.
I was referring to the fact that it doesn't take a lot of fancy language to make it so that the mother is the only one who can authorise the termination of the fetus, rather than the only one who can defend it. The requirement that an intentional termination be the mother's own action or an authorised medical procedure performed by a doctor protects any third party who might step in and use force to keep the mother from being punched in the stomach, in case she later claims she wanted it done to induce miscarriage.
-
KD5NRH - OK. Just so long as we are not perfusing Ladysmith any more than she already is. It would be a tragedy if an innocent were killed by an errant shoe.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
The requirement that an intentional termination be the mother's own action or an authorised medical procedure performed by a doctor protects any third party who might step in and use force to keep the mother from being punched in the stomach, in case she later claims she wanted it done to induce miscarriage.
Say What?!?
Just so long as we are not perfusing Ladysmith any more than she already is.
Too late. My brain...she is broken.
Can I at least clock those legislators with a shoe? I need to throw a shoe at somebody over this.
-
Don't worry, you can always throw one at fistful... ;)
-
Say What?!?
Too late. My brain...she is broken.
Can I at least clock those legislators with a shoe? I need to throw a shoe at somebody over this.
It has gone past the point where you are permitted to ask for permission.
And yes, those legislators are more than acceptable as targets.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Please explain something to me...
Under what premise are they giving baby-mamas the ok to use lethal force to protect the unborn? Are they saying it's because the baby is a human being (which is nullified by Wade, right?) or because it's something valuable to the mother that just happens to be inside her body? If it's only based on value, could this law then be used to justify lethal force being used to protect something else inside a woman's body, say a baggie of expensive exotic fish? (Hey, it could happen. =D)
Ok, now let me hold onto something in case Skidmark answers. :lol:
-
That's actually not a bad question, Ladysmith. And one I'd kinda like to see the answer to.
It seems the decision of whether or not a fetus has rights as a human rests with the mother: if she wishes to terminate the pregnancy, it has none. Otherwise, it counts as human (there was a case of a driver hitting and killing a pregnant woman: he was charged with two counts of, I believe, reckless homicide)...
Not going into the whole abortion argument here: just looking at the jurisprudence. Which seems to point to the mother's decision being the deciding factor...
-
What was that guy a few years back who killed his 8-month pregnant (wife/girlfriend)? He was charged with a double murder, and the news reports even said things such as "The bodies of XX and her baby were found. . . " Peterson?
-
That was Scott Peterson, charged with 1st degree murder of his wife Laci and 2nd degree murder of his unborn son Connor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson
That's actually not a bad question, Ladysmith. And one I'd kinda like to see the answer to.
Why thank you, Strings. =)
-
Cool... maybe now, I won't get shoes thrown my way! :D
-
which is nullified by Wade, right?
Given that Wade is a federal decision, and this is state level, it's probably a carefully worded law to prevent it from getting hauled into court by the pro-choicers and nullified that way.
I still fail to see how an assault potentially dangerous enough to cause a miscarriage couldn't count as threat of GBH(at the least) once you consider the side effects, especially for a late term miscarriage.
-
It doesn't take much to cause a miscarriage.
-
It doesn't take much to cause a miscarriage.
Doesn't take much to break an 80 year old woman's hip, but it'd still be considered GBH.
Of course, my personal definition of GBH is that you generally NEED to see a doctor/spend time in the hospital for it.
A late term trauma based miscarriage is going to result in a hospital stay or medical intervention. Thus, GBH is satisfied, and self defense is authorized/approved.
-
A late term trauma based miscarriage is going to result in a hospital stay or medical intervention. Thus, GBH is satisfied, and self defense is authorized/approved.
Not always. Though I agree it seems like an un-needed bit of law.
-
Isn't the usual question based on what the "average man" would think was reasonable?
A woman could have a miscarriage, and seem ok by the time of trial, making the "average man" think she had over-reacted...
-
Please explain something to me...
Under what premise are they giving baby-mamas the ok to use lethal force to protect the unborn? Are they saying it's because the baby is a human being (which is nullified by Wade, right?) or because it's something valuable to the mother that just happens to be inside her body? If it's only based on value, could this law then be used to justify lethal force being used to protect something else inside a woman's body, say a baggie of expensive exotic fish? (Hey, it could happen. =D)
Ok, now let me hold onto something in case Skidmark answers. :lol:
Sorry to be late - I was getting rid of another build-up of excess fluids. 3 days in the hurtspital peeing my brains out (avg 3.75 liters/day), and now am on a 1,000 cc/day fluid restriction. I do not know why I was waterlogged, but for the next few months I better not hear any female complain about feeling bloated unless she wants to hear every detail of my recent stay.
Anyhow, to respond to your query -- I posted the text of the bill Re: Protect your unborn baby - okay in OK « Reply #7 on: April 24, 2009, 03:33:54 PM » so you could read it and see just how many different kinds of stupid were used in writing it. I know it makes your head hurt, but you really need to read it through to the end.
Yes, in the face of Roe v Wade they define an unborn child as a human being for purposes of this law. I did not see where that definition is extended to any other laws currently on the books.
As for your implanted exotic fish tangent - it's a no-go. Fish is still fish, and therefore at best strangly-stored property. AFAIK only after dark in Texas are you justified in yousing deadly lethal force to protect property.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Welcome back, Skidmark.
I'm sorry to read that you were in the hospital.
I hope you get better soon and I promise not to mention any female water weight gain.
I was secretly thinking that you'd gone to smack some sense into those legislators and was going to offer you the best of my footwear in case you were (sandals are particularly good for slaps upside the head). =D
I suppose I can go read about that law as you suggested.
*kicks rock*But it's much better and funnier when you break it all down for us. =( :lol:
Hey Strings, do you have some aspirin I can borrow? I don't think the super economy bottle I have on hand is going to be enough.
-
Do I look like a drug peddler? :P
-
:lol: :laugh: :lol:
C'mon man...I heard you got that Motrin. =D
-
Compliments from Ladysmith are guaranteed to overcome my reluctance to get folks to do their own brainwork. Here goes!
The Legislature finds that:
1. Violence and abuse are often higher during pregnancy than during any other time in a woman’s lifetime;
2. Women are more likely to suffer increased abuse as a result of unintended pregnancies;
3. Younger women are at a higher risk for pregnancy-associated homicide;
4. A pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more likely to be a victim of homicide than to die of any other cause;
5. Homicide and other violent crimes are the leading cause of death for women of reproductive age;
6. Husbands, ex-husbands or boyfriends are often the perpetrators of pregnancy-associated homicide or violence;
7. Moreover, when husbands, ex-husbands or boyfriends are involved, the violence is often directed at the unborn child and/or intended to end or jeopardize the pregnancy; and
8. Violence against a pregnant woman puts the life and bodily integrity of both the pregnant woman and the unborn child at risk.
Eight reasons women who are pregnant are at high risk for being the victim of violence leading to death. Nothing here about harm to the unborn child yet. Hang on, more to come.
As used in this section:
1. "Another" means a person other than the pregnant woman;
2. "Deadly force" means force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical harm;
3. "Force" means violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against another;
4. "Embryo" means a human embryo as defined in Section 1-728.1 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes;
5. "Pregnant" means the female reproductive condition of having an unborn child in the woman’s body;
6. "Unborn child" means the offspring of human beings from conception until birth; and
7. "Unlawful force" means force which is employed without the consent of the pregnant woman and which constitutes an offense under the criminal laws of this state or an actionable tort.
We now distinguish between an "embryo" and an "unborn child". "Embryo" means "a human organism that is derived by fertilization, parthonenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gamets or human diploid cells." http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os63.rtf @ pg 120 Besides one definition being extremely technical and the other very broad and simple, what's the difference? I suggest you look further ar Title 63, Section 1-278 et seq. regarding stuff like abortions (HINT!)
A. A pregnant woman is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect her unborn child if:
1. Under the circumstances as the pregnant woman reasonably believes them to be, she would be justified in using force or deadly force to protect herself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be threatening her unborn child; and
2. She reasonably believes that her intervention and use of force or deadly force are immediately necessary to protect her unborn child.
B. This affirmative defense to criminal liability does not apply to:
1. Acts committed by anyone other than the pregnant woman;
2. Acts where the pregnant woman would be obligated to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing, or to comply with a demand before using force in self-defense. However, the pregnant woman is not obligated to retreat before using force or deadly force to protect her unborn child, unless she knows that she can thereby secure the complete safety of her unborn child; or
3. The defense of human embryos existing outside of a woman’s body.
Let's look at this stuff.
First: 1. Under the circumstances as the pregnant woman reasonably believes them to be, she would be justified in using force or deadly force to protect herself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be threatening her unborn child; and
2. She reasonably believes that her intervention and use of force or deadly force are immediately necessary to protect her unborn child.
The pregnant woman is justified in using force or deadly force to protect herself against force threatening the unborn child. Sort of a conundrum, no? As previously asked, can a woman protect her unborn child without protecting herself? Amazingly, I believe the answer is clearly "YES" as does, apparently, the Oklahoma legislature. If it were not possible, then they would not have separated justifiable defense of self or another from justifiable defense of an unborn child. Part #2 of the above I believe clearly states that to be the case.
As to the entirety of Section B, including the taking away of the protection by the baby-momma of her "human embryos existing outside of a woman’s body," is completely unsupported, as far as I can find in the statements of intent, purposes, and findings. There is nothing, nada, zilch, zip, bupkis regarding any reason why baby-daddys or complete strangers cannot be justified in using lethal deadly force in defending the unborn child even if the actions threatening death or grevious bodily injury to the unborn child do not threaten the same to the baby-momma. The only conclusion I can draw is that the Oklahoma legislature firmly believes that only a baby-momma can reasonably believe she knows when her unborn child is threatened with death or grevious bodily harm.
(Is this where I get to blather on about hormone-laden women and the cognitive impediments that arise under such conditions? Just want to check and see if I'm risking any flying shoes for that before actually going there. :laugh:)
Now, how does any of that provide an answer to Ladysmith's question: "Under what premise are they giving baby-mamas the ok to use lethal force to protect the unborn? Are they saying it's because the baby is a human being (which is nullified by Wade, right?) or because it's something valuable to the mother that just happens to be inside her body?"
Even though I am not an attorney, and certainly not Ladysmith's attorney, and I have not been near any Holiday Inn Expresses in a long while, I can state with a great deal of certainty that the only discernable premise is found under the BISS Doctrine. Although most of you may not recognize the citation, I am willing to bet the farm that you all were exposed to the BISS Doctrine throughout your childhood, and many of you continue to act under its aegis. BISS Doctrine = "Because I Said So!"
Taking Ladysmith's question and expanding it to what is should have been, the BISS Doctrine applies especially because the legislature gave the exclusive justification for use of deadly force to baby-mommas and denied that justification to all others.
However, it is my very sure conclusion that the BISS Doctrine is at play when we read the very last section of the law: "B. This affirmative defense to criminal liability does not apply to: ... 3. The defense of human embryos existing outside of a woman’s body." A baby-momma is prevented from using deadly force to protect the human embryo existing outside her body. BUT the law makes a distinction between a human embryo and an unborn child. Another bet of the farm that the legislature did not think that one through before committing words to paper!
Hope you are now in need of something better than Motrin.
I believe Ladysmith and I are located relatively close to each other. I would not mind picking her up for a drive to Oklahoma for some shoe throwing or sandal-slapping fun, but we will have to stop at every other gas station, and if the men's room is not clean I claim a right to whine and say we need to go somewhere else. =) Anyone else willing to drive to Oklahoma under those conditions is welcome to come along.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Can I at least clock those legislators with a shoe? I need to throw a shoe at somebody over this.
After you get done in OK, do you mind swinging down south to Austin? Our legislators need a good shoe-clocking on a regular basis.... ;/
It's a strange world where OK is passing better legislation than TX.... =|
-
Roadtrip!!! :laugh:
Thank you very, very much Skidmark. =)
Yes, I do need something more than Motrin to stop the brain pain, but reading your in-depth yet hilarious analysis was well worth it. =D
I've been hanging out between 1st and 10th Streets looking for Strings cuz I heard he had some primo Advil, but he hasn't shown up. =( :laugh:
-
As for your implanted exotic fish tangent - it's a no-go. Fish is still fish, and therefore at best strangly-stored property. AFAIK only after dark in Texas are you justified in yousing deadly lethal force to protect property.
Actually, after dark only affects criminal mischief and theft. Arson, burglary and robbery are full-time justifications.
Robbery is also so wide open that it could easily be applied to almost any theft if the owner (or someone acting in the owner's stead) makes any move to stop it.
29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.
(Aggravated robbery provides an enhancement to felony 1 for serious bodily injury or robbery of a disabled person or person over 65 - since "disabled" is defined in the code as someone not substantially capable of defending themselves, it would be hard to apply in self defense, but could still be used in defense of a third party. Either way it's irrelevant other than to possible charges against a surviving attacker, as the enhancement is completely unnecessary to the affirmative defense for the defender.)
1.07. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this code:
(8) "Bodily injury" means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.
Thus, if it hurts, it qualifies. If you can convince a jury that you reasonably believed the person hurting you was planning to take something from you as well, you're justified in using force up to and including deadly force.
So, if you reasonably believe the person is planning to deprive you of your fetus, your pocket lint or your tropical fish by force, in Texas, you can use the necessary force to stop them.
As usual, I'm no lawyer, so be sure to check with one beforehand.