Today’s GOP insanity

[hazard]

alright, since i cannot seem to get quoting multiple posts to work for some strange reason, ii guess i'm going to have to do this the hard way.

Rob: The reason i did not read the article is this is a case that was covered by the local news, therefore ii didn't feel the express need to. That said, in the state of Alabama, if you do what the woman who was shot did, it is considered aggressive behavior and you are legally able to defend yourself, and yes that includes shooting the other person.

Epsilon: That is your personal opinion, it is not that they got in the argument and the shooter simply pulled a pistol and shot the pregnant woman, the pregnant pursued the first to her vehicle where the shooter then retrieved her gun and shot her. For all we know, threats were made causing the woman to feel threatened and pull the gun out to be able to leave.

Norgarth: No physical violence, but how about threats, did woman A block the ability for B to leave without hitting her and damaging the car? Again, Alabama, my area, arguably the woman was in her right to do so if she felt threatened. and your little looping meme was cute, Home Alone, right? That account you edited in is probably why woman B was initially charged with attempted murder for shooting woman A.

If these are the standards for force escalation in Alabama, Alabama must be a terribly unsafe place to live.

I mean, it appears you can be shot for almost anything in Alabama without any repercussions for the shooter.

Isodecan, Hazard: You two actually have the most legally pertinent argument as you are right, the incident happened two years ago and she is being charged under a law that didn't exist at that time, therefore it will either be laughed out by the judge, (a good lawyer can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich) or on appeal the case will be overturned on that merit alone. 

Well apparently not, given that both woman A and woman B weren't indicted for anything. Or do you mean to tell me that the DAs of Alabama aren't good lawyers?

Now, i'm going to say something, or more accurately point something out, without me here you seem to have something of an echo chamber, one of you says "Oh how horrible X is," a few of you chime in agreeing and then the matter pretty much dies because you are all in agreement. The fact that you have practically no debate on the merits of the issue is questionable in my eyes, therefore sometimes i disagree with you simply to either be contrary or to play devils advocate. On the other hand there are times that I honestly disagree with you, and in all honesty you are not going to be able to tell the difference when i argue the point because i will argue both sides with equal fervor.

That pointed out, and reiterating that i don't agree with Alabama's abortion ban, nor for that matter do i think  that this woman should be charged with anything more than reckless endangerment (of herself and her unborn child), i think you all need to realize that i am not your enemy, i just think differently than you do because of different factors in my life.

Odd. I mean, sure, one should discuss matters on the merits of what is being discussed. It's just that very often there is nothing to merit debate. For the remainder, I'm with Matrix.

Asshole, I'll cop to that, hell, I will even take a bit of pride in that, however i just can't quite see the others. PM me some particulars and i'll point out my thinking.

in this case, I'm sorry but when you are 5 months pregnant you don't start a fight, let alone aggressively pursue the argument to the other persons vehicle. That should be common damn sense because being pregnant is not a shield.

Apparently, it's a shield for assholes to abuse the pregnant woman because she shouldn't get involved in a fight.