Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 26, 2019

A woman whose unborn baby was killed in a 2018 Pleasant Grove shooting has now been indicted in the death.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

...and they said that articles in The Onion could never happen in real life.

#1 | Posted by e1g1 at 2019-06-27 01:44 AM | Reply

Justified kill.

#2 | Posted by bored at 2019-06-27 03:09 AM | Reply

This country is sick.

#3 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-06-27 05:14 AM | Reply

""The investigation showed that the only true victim in this was the unborn baby,'' Pleasant Grove police Lt. Danny Reid said at the time of the shooting. "It was the mother of the child who initiated and continued the fight which resulted in the death of her own unborn baby.""

Lock this ignorant piece of filth up and throw away the key. Lt. Danny Reid is who I am talking about.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2019-06-27 07:04 AM | Reply

laws get passed = money to be made

common sense = "no way to run a government "

#5 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2019-06-27 08:41 AM | Reply

Nothing I read justifies pulling out a gun in a parking and shooting. The notion that this pregnant woman should have known she might be shot is ludicrous. Only in Southern US can such crazy things happen. Not charging the shooter is inexcusable.

#6 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-06-27 08:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Should have kept her hands to herself.

#7 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-06-27 09:11 AM | Reply

And yet southerners get so offended at the notion that they're back woods hicks.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2019-06-27 09:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Let me get this straight...

So, if you get in an "altercation" with someone who has a gun, and they shoot and kill SOMEONE ELSE while supposedly "defending themselves" against you, then YOU can get charged with manslaughter?

Or is this only targeted at pregnant women?

#9 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-06-27 09:31 AM | Reply

Or is this only targeted at pregnant women?

#9 | Posted by gtbritishskull

Ding Ding Ding - have to indict if you want that abortion law to stand. I mean forget you were the one shot and the shooter goes free...

#10 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-06-27 09:40 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

I'm sorry but she tried to attack another person who legally defended themselves with a firearm.

Because the outcome was that she lost her baby is no reason she shouldn't be charged.

If she had robbed a bank and had been shot thereby losing the fetus, we'd charge her. Attacking someone is no different.

#11 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-06-27 11:30 AM | Reply

That's not the narrative Syco. It's an evil pro-life conspiracy.

#12 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-06-27 11:46 AM | Reply

How can anyone be charged? It was "only" a lump of cells.

#13 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-06-27 12:32 PM | Reply

How can anyone be charged? It was "only" a lump of cells.

#13 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

See, we agree. It is only a lump of cells and the law is wrong. But that's the current law.

Glad to see you on the Pro-Choice side.

#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-06-27 03:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

That's not the narrative Syco. It's an evil pro-life conspiracy.

#12 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Did someone say it was a conspiracy or just a dick move?

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-06-27 03:48 PM | Reply

If she had robbed a bank and had been shot thereby losing the fetus, we'd charge her. Attacking someone is no different.

#11 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Uhhh... not sure that is equivalent. Pretty sure that if you commit a felony (like robbing a bank) and someone dies, then anyone committing the felony can be charged with murder.

Don't think anyone answered by original question (in #9). If I attack someone (with my hands) and they pull out a gun to "defend themselves" and end up shooting and killing a bystander, can I be charged with manslaughter?

If so, can you show me an example of that actually happening?

I am OK with her being charged if it is a consistent standard applied to everyone (pregnancy, fetus, etc. should not matter). But, if I WOULDN'T be charged in the scenario I lay out above, then she should not be charged in this one.

#16 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-06-27 04:13 PM | Reply

What happens if the mother dies during child birth? Is the newborn charged with murder?

#17 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2019-06-27 06:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

What happens if the mother dies during child birth? Is the newborn charged with murder?

POSTED BY FEDUPWITHPOLS AT 2019-06-27 06:08 PM | REPLY

The woman is merely the host. She doesn't count according to them.

#18 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-06-27 06:09 PM | Reply

If I read the article right the pregnant woman attacked someone while pregnant and was trying to do serious bodily harm when she got shot.

If this is true she has much in common with a hostage taker.

#19 | Posted by Tor at 2019-06-27 07:02 PM | Reply

It is only a lump of cells and the law is wrong.
Glad to see you on the Pro-Choice side.
#14 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Wrong.
I'm still not wild about mangling those cells that have a beating heart.

#20 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-06-27 08:12 PM | Reply

"I'm still not wild about mangling those cells that have a beating heart."

Problem is, you don't know when the beating heart starts. The liars trying to hoodwink you want you to believe it's when cells begin to pulse. What they won't tell you is that's NOT a heart, and cells in a Petri dish pulse the same. The heart finally forms around 20-22 weeks.

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-27 08:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sanity prevails. Halleluja

#22 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-06-28 09:05 AM | Reply

Not charging the shooter is inexcusable.
#6 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-06-27 08:43 AM

The shooter was charged. The grand jury found that the shooter, after being stalked and attacked by the pregnant woman, was allowed to defend herself.

#23 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-06-28 10:59 AM | Reply

The heart finally forms around 20-22 weeks.
#21 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

So that should mean no post 23 week mangle?

#24 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-06-28 11:22 AM | Reply

"So that should mean no post 23 week mangle?"

I don't believe that's ever a government decision.

I'm just trying to point out how folks are lying to you, assuming you're too stupid to know the truth.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-28 11:28 AM | Reply

"I don't believe that's ever a government decision."

So your answer is YES.

#26 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-06-28 11:50 AM | Reply

"So your answer is YES."

Are you pretending to be stupid, or not pretending? My answer is NO. Today, tomorrow, always. It's not your decision, or mine; it's between the woman, her doctor, and her God.

No wonder you bought the "cells pulsing = a heart" lie. You're just the target audience they love.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-28 11:55 AM | Reply

Danforth,

If I'm understanding you correctly you are in favor of zero restrictions on abortion up to the point of birth?

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-28 12:03 PM | Reply

"you are in favor of zero restrictions on abortion up to the point of birth?"

I'm in favor of reality.

So let's go there immediately: What percentage of women do you believe seek abortions in the third trimester, as a lark?

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-28 12:07 PM | Reply

#29 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

That Danforth is slippery. almost like Snoofy, the electric eel.

#30 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-28 12:09 PM | Reply

What percentage of women do you believe seek abortions in the third trimester, as a lark? - #29 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-28 12:07 PM
I'm going to go with: Approximately equal to the percentage of people who buy guns with the intentions of committing crimes.
Now please let us know why the % is of importance.

#31 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-06-28 01:11 PM | Reply

"I'm going to go with: Approximately equal to the percentage of people who buy guns with the intentions of committing crimes."

Worthless deflection noted.

"please let us know why the % is of importance."

We're planning to deal with reality rather than talking points.

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-28 01:15 PM | Reply

Worthless deflection noted.
"please let us know why the % is of importance."
We're planning to deal with reality rather than talking points. - #32 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-28 01:15 PM

It's not a deflection. It's an example of another small fraction along with a precursor to show why the point I expect you were attempting to make was going to be irrelevant. Trying to save us some time.

#33 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-06-28 01:43 PM | Reply

"why the point I expect you were attempting to make was going to be irrelevant."

The reason for late abortions are irrelevant?!? In what bizarro world?

"Trying to save us some time."

Then leave your worthless deflections out of it.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-28 03:31 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort