Here's one for the irony files

[slackmaster]

ASSOCIATED PRESS
5:01 a.m. November 18, 2004

INDIO – A teenager accused of shooting his pregnant girlfriend at an abortion clinic, making her a quadriplegic, was found guilty of attempted murder by a Riverside County jury. The 16-year-old victim testified that Jeffrey Cameron Fitzhenry, 17, repeatedly threatened her before the shooting, saying that she was "depriving him of his unborn child." When she went inside the Palm Desert clinic, Fitzhenry followed her, argued with her, and shot her in the neck.

"He told her why he did this a week before when he had said, 'If you take something of mine, I'll take something of yours,'" Riverside County prosecutor Traci Carrillo told jurors in her closing argument. "That was his motive. On April 29, 2004, that defendant made a cold, calculated judgment when he took a loaded gun to the clinic with the intent to take a life, with the intent to commit murder...."

...The fetus was declared dead within three days of the shooting, according to Robert Blythe, an attorney handling a lawsuit by the girl against Fitzhenry.

Because the girl had decided to have an abortion, Riverside County prosecutors did not seek a murder charge against Fitzhenry under the new federal Laci Peterson law, which makes it a separate crime to harm or kill a fetus during an assault on the mother, Blythe said....

slackmaster comments: I don't understand why Mr. Fitzhenry wasn't charged with murder of the fetus under California Penal Code. Although the girl had decided to have an abortion she had not yet done so and it is conceivable she could have changed her mind. It was Fitzhenry's action that caused the death of the fetus.

IMO Fitzhenry is a dangerous violent criminal who deserves as much punishment as the system can dole out. Life in prison if that is possible. It seems to me the state's fetal murder statute, whether you like it or not, is being selectively enforced.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20041118-0501-ca-abortionclinicshooting.html

PENAL CODE
SECTION 187-199

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law....

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

[iverglas]

1. 'cause some pigs is more equal than others

I don't understand why Mr. Fitzhenry wasn't charged with murder of the fetus under California Penal Code. Although the girl had decided to have an abortion she had not yet done so and it is conceivable she could have changed her mind. It was Fitzhenry's action that caused the death of the fetus.

And, as I've asked you elsewhere, why should anyone's feelings about the fetus in question determine whether a "fetal homicide" charge is laid? Are charges not laid when a woman shoots her mother-in-law, because whether the killing of a mother-in-law constitutes murder or not is dependent on how well she was loved by her daughter-in-law?

"Fetal homicide" laws are legal garbage. And the US federal one in question is Republican legal garbage, I do believe.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=224x10#44

We can move the discussion here, if you'd prefer. It might get a little livelier than it did over in Justice/Courts/Law, though.


In any event, the actions of the individual demonstrate rather clearly that there are a lot of people who would dearly love to deny women autonomy in a lot of things, and some of them are men with ... oh look, firearms.