Debate over how to prosecute the killing of a fetus

[mrldii]

What about ethical? A fetus can survive birth at 30 weeks with medical intervention based on just being premature.

The fetus had what chance under those circumstances? It wasn't natural premature labour. It was malice, with intent.

The local jurisdiction (Colorado state law) doesn't recognize a 30-week-old fetus as a life, capable OF being murdered. Therefore, it would be il-legal (that is, against the law) to bring such charges.

Whether we like it or not.

Again, this isn't The Great 'A' Debate, it's whether or not - based on the laws in place - murder charges CAN be brought. The District Attorney (in charge OF enforcing the laws as written) has deemed based on the current law in place, murder charges can't be.

Anything else would be il-legal, and we really don't want those we put in charge of our laws deliberately engaging in il-legal activities. It becomes a tad bit hypocritical and a whole bunch of an oxymoron.

 

[WhoFlungpoo]

The local jurisdiction (Colorado state law) doesn't recognize a 30-week-old fetus as a life, capable OF being murdered. Therefore, it would be il-legal (that is, against the law) to bring such charges.

Whether we like it or not.

Again, this isn't The Great 'A' Debate, it's whether or not - based on the laws in place - murder charges CAN be brought. The District Attorney (in charge OF enforcing the laws as written) has deemed based on the current law in place, murder charges can't be.

Anything else would be il-legal, and we really don't want those we put in charge of our laws deliberately engaging in il-legal activities. It becomes a tad bit hypocritical and a whole bunch of an oxymoron.

You'll have to forgive me on laws over there. They are not the laws here.

All our laws are the same without a state basis.

 

[mrldii]

You'll have to forgive me on laws over there. They are not the laws here.

All our laws are the same without a state basis.

That's one of the biggest problems and largest graces, here in the U.S. - States' sovereignty is supposed to take precedent over Federal mandates.

Based on that State's law, no murder charges CAN be brought. Had the same exact thing happened in another state, they very well MAY have been brought against the perpetrator. And, any decision may have been appealed...all the way through that State's Supreme Court and on up to the Supreme Court of the United States.


Which would then piss a lot of people off.


It's a fundamental difference and *uniqueness* of our government that a lot of people who don't live in the U.S. - and probably even more who DO live in the U.S. - don't understand; it's also what makes us look *like* we have no fucking clue what we're doing, from one day to the next when it comes to matters of 'common sense'.

 

[WhoFlungpoo]

Based on the husband's statement the fetus drew breath. Wouldn't that qualify as "life" therefore the charge could of been brought against her?

 

[mrldii]

Based on the husband's statement the fetus drew breath. Wouldn't that qualify as "life" therefore the charge could of been brought against her?

Where was it reported that the husband stated the fetus drew breath...and/or that he was present at the time the crime was committed?

All the reports I read/saw, indicated the DA's hands were tied as there were no witnesses as to whether or not a live-birth took place...which would have changed his decision, if it were the case.

 

[WhoFlungpoo]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-fetus-stolen-craigslist-20150319-story.html

Husband's statement in the press that he came home to find her covered in blood in the bathtub with the baby gasping for breath.

 

[mrldii]

Ahhhh...I thought you meant the victim's husband, whoflung.

The article states the DA was going to wait for the autopsy to determine if the baby had taken a breath; I believe the autopsy could not prove such., which is why he's not sought additional charges, which he'd stated he would if he got proof the baby had been alive, at some point.


I DO NOT KNOW IT FOR A FACT, but it reads to me that Colorado may have a law that a person can invoke the 5th and avoid testifying against their spouse ("Spousal Privilege"), just as they can to avoid incriminating themselves. If that's the case, it would explain why the DA needs the autopsy - and not just simply the husband's statement - TO file charges; if the husband invokes the 5th, their case for murder just went out the window.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

What about ethical? A fetus can survive birth at 30 weeks with medical intervention based on just being premature.

The fetus had what chance under those circumstances? It wasn't natural premature labour. It was malice, with intent.

Ethics! LOL! Were talking about a state with no guts or morals and is allowing cold blooded murder to happen because they don't want the controversy. They could have found the means in some manner to bring murder charges.

 

[WhoFlungpoo]

Ahhhh...I thought you meant the victim's husband, whoflung.

The article states the DA was going to wait for the autopsy to determine if the baby had taken a breath; I believe the autopsy could not prove such., which is why he's not sought additional charges, which he'd stated he would if he got proof the baby had been alive, at some point.


I DO NOT KNOW IT FOR A FACT, but it reads to me that Colorado may have a law that a person can invoke the 5th and avoid testifying against their spouse ("Spousal Privilege"), just as they can to avoid incriminating themselves. If that's the case, it would explain why the DA needs the autopsy - and not just simply the husband's statement - TO file charges; if the husband invokes the 5th, their case for murder just went out the window.

Urm WTF his wife does something like this and he'd take the 5th.

This case sure makes you question humanity for sure.

Let me guess she's going to plead insanity ,mitigating circumstance or temporary loss of sanity.

 

[WhoFlungpoo]

Ethics! LOL! Were talking about a state with no guts or morals and is allowing cold blooded murder to happen because they don't want the controversy. They could have found the means in some manner to bring murder charges.

Hey now I agree it should be murder but as I'm going along in this topic remember I'm clueless to state laws.

I appreciate Mrldii filling me in on certain aspects. To me at 30 weeks that baby stood a chance of living.

As I said earlier in my country we all have the same laws. There is no state differences in the UK.

 

[mrldii]

@whoflung:

I'm pretty sure "Spousal Privilege" is able to be invoked in MANY states.

That's *cute* - that you're shocked people in the U.S. are not ruled by a code of ethics and wouldn't do something, simply because it's the right thing TO do.


Is England really that different? (Be careful before you answer...if you say "Yes", then I may just haul my ass - and my trailer-park ways - right on over to your neck o' the woods.)

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Hey now I agree it should be murder but as I'm going along in this topic remember I'm clueless to state laws.

I appreciate Mrldii filling me in on certain aspects. To me at 30 weeks that baby stood a chance of living.

As I said earlier in my country we all have the same laws. There is no state differences in the UK.

I understand, just responding how frustrating something like this is and how they are allowing murder to happen because they don't want to be the ones to set some kind of precedent on the life of a unborn human being.

 

[mrldii]

For the umpteenth time, it's NOT "murder"; it doesn't fit that State's prerequisites FOR "murder".

If it did meet the qualifications for "murder" in that state, additional "murder" charges would have been brought against the already-arrested-on-murder-charges culprit.



Repeatedly screaming "It's not *right*!!!" and/or "I don't LIKE it!!!" does/do NOT change the facts of the matter.


Don't like it? Don't move to Colorado. They won't miss you.

 

[WhoFlungpoo]

It's something we have here too. I don't agree with it. You think if your spouse has done something like this you give a damn about remaining in harmony?


Who in their right mind would still want to be married to someone after doing something like this? I'm sure Myra Hindley stated what only what she did, but also what her partner Ian Bradley did at trial.

We are different in some ways.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

For the umpteenth time, it's NOT "murder"; it doesn't fit that State's prerequisites FOR "murder".

If it did meet the qualifications for "murder" in that state, additional "murder" charges would have been brought against the already-arrested-on-murder-charges culprit.



Repeatedly screaming "It's not *right*!!!" and/or "I don't LIKE it!!!" does/do NOT change the facts of the matter.


Don't like it? Don't move to Colorado. They won't miss you.

You can say it ain't murder all you want but you would be wrong every time.

 

[WhoFlungpoo]

You can say it ain't murder all you want but you would be wrong every time.

I think Mrldii is following the letter of the law so to speak. Rather than an emotional or ethics point of view.

I personally find it inhumane that she won't be charged for it. Sadly, with the current laws in the state. She'd end up with the ability to sue the state if they even tried and win.

I think maybe after this they should at least have a fetal law.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

I think Mrldii is following the letter of the law so to speak. Rather than an emotional or ethics point of view.

I personally find it inhumane that she won't be charged for it. Sadly, with the current laws in the state. She'd end up with the ability to sue the state if they even tried and win.

I think maybe after this they should at least have a fetal law.

I understand. And I am saying just because there is no law in a state it still is cold blooded murder of a HUMAN being. And if you truly want to see justice for that human life killed then any half decent lawyer will find a case to be made for it.

 

[mrldii]

Whether or not I am following the "letter of the law", it is morally reprehensible to me that someone would deliberately choose to fight something that is illegal by choosing to do something deliberately il-legal in return, on the side of feeling that they are morally *right* TO do so.


Seems a tad bit hypocritical...and that one's argument FOR *right* falls in upon itself.



Sort of *like* it's OK to kill doctors who perform abortions on the doorsteps of such clinics, because it's morally not *right* for the doctors to be performing them. You'll be sitting on the same hot bench in the halls of Hell, right alongside those OTHER 'immoral' ones.

 

[WhoFlungpoo]

I understand. And I am saying just because there is no law in a state it still is cold blooded murder of a HUMAN being. And if you truly want to see justice for that human life killed then any half decent lawyer will find a case to be made for it.

I totally understand but unless that state recognises Fetal law. It won't happen or she would not only not be charged with it, but have the right to sue the state and the lawyers would have a field day. To add she'd not only not be charged but become very rich from sueing them.

 

[mrldii]

It's something we have here too. I don't agree with it. You think if your spouse has done something like this you give a damn about remaining in harmony?


Who in their right mind would still want to be married to someone after doing something like this? I'm sure Myra Hindley stated what only what she did, but also what her partner Ian Bradley did at trial.

We are different in some ways.

When it's come up in conversation, people have looked at me oddly when I've stated that if my one-and-only child ever did something illegal (including the biggies like murder or rape), I'd be the first one to turn him in. Turning in a spouse who's done something illegal? Easy-as-pie. Social constructs begin eroding the more 'excuses' we make for why it's OK just this once.

On the other hand, if someone had ever touched my one-and-only child in an inappropriate way, I would have killed them with my bare hands, sans weapons. I would have never contacted the authorities or told another soul about what the fucktard had done to my child; let the authorities do the legwork necessary to solve this random crime, where someone ended up dead on the side of the road.

When and if they traced it back to me, I'd gladly tell my side of the story and then gladly fulfill any punishment meted out my way, including a death penalty, if it was so decreed.

I'm pretty sure most normal members of society feel similarly, which is why what fits as "normal" in society includes NOT having prison records from doing illegal things.