Shooting at Ft Hood; 7 dead, 20+wounded

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jiro said:
tell that to Supreme Court. Since she was 6-weeks pregnant, the law doesn't recognize her fetus as a person since it's not a viable human being yet. it can die due to miscarriage.

while the law doesn't recognize him as a person, you should be glad that there is a chargeable offense for double homicide on pregnant woman.
Click to expand...

I thought Pvt. Francheska Velez from Chicago, ILL was 3 months pregnant. She was only 21 years old. Hmmm......
 
Maria said:
I thought Pvt. Francheska Velez from Chicago, ILL was 3 months pregnant. She was only 21 years old. Hmmm......
Click to expand...

hhmm... let me double-check. you might be right.
 
Maria - :ty: for correcting me. You are right. She was 3-months pregnant, not 6-weeks. Not sure where did I read 6-weeks part. :dunno:

Either way - even at 3-months, the baby is still not legally recognized as a person but you should be glad there's a chargeable offense for killing pregnant woman as double homicide.
 
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence
Click to expand...
This bill gives an embryo or fetus full status as an independent "victim" of crime, with legal rights distinct from those of the woman who has been harmed by physical assault. It doesn't matter if a fetus is not legally recognized as a person. This bill is better than nothing. I would rather have someone be charged with double homicide than getting away with it.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title: To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes.
Click to expand...

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)


UVVA

Unborn Victims of Violence Act Main Page
 
Jiro said:
uh no. Again - nothing in the law supported your statement. It's a seperate chargeable offense to kill a pregnant woman, nothing more.
Click to expand...
When you are in the military there is a term called "double jepordy" What it means is that you are not only subject to civilian law, you are also subject to military law which in many cases is above and beyond what civilian law is. If you are in the military and commit a crime you pay the price twice. Once to the civiilian authority and once to the military authority. You may be sujected to additional charges under military law.
 
hmmm as much as I wish that were true, I always was lead to believe that the term "double jeopardy" indicated that an individual cannot be tried twice for the same crime.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=double jeopardy
Noun
•S: (n) double jeopardy (the prosecution of a defendant for a criminal offense for which he has already been tried; prohibited in the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution)
Click to expand...
 
Eve said:
hmmm as much as I wish that were true, I always was lead to believe that the term "double jeopardy" indicated that an individual cannot be tried twice for the same crime.
WordNet Search - 3.0
Click to expand...
I am ex military. Trust me. It's true and that is the term they used. When you are in the military you can and will be tried twice for the same crime.
 
Does "double jeopardy" apply to non-civilians, or only when civilians are involved? Reason why I am asking is because the only time I ever heard of a military serviceman appearing in civilian court is if it involve a civilian.

Thanks for any clarification.
 
souggy said:
Does "double jeopardy" apply to non-civilians, or only when civilians are involved? Reason why I am asking is because the only time I ever heard of a military serviceman appearing in civilian court is if it involve a civilian.

Thanks for any clarification.
Click to expand...
It only applies to military staff regardless of civilian involvement. I am basing this on my memory of when I was in the service 20+ years ago. Allthough things may have changed I highly doubt being subjected to civilian and military law has.
 
Jiro said:
Nowhere in your link stated that it recognizes unborn child as a person. It only stated that it's a chargeable offense to kill a pregnant woman - regardless of stage of development.

again... with this pro-life agenda...
Click to expand...
Actually, it does recognize the humanity of the baby:

"44a. Article 119a.--Death or injury of an
unborn child
a. Text of statute.
(a)(1) Any person subject to this chapter who
engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions
of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby
causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined
in section 1365 of title 18) to, a child, who is in
utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty
of a separate offense under this section and shall,
upon conviction , be punished by such punish -
ment, other than death, as a court-martial may
direct, which shall be consistent with the punishments
prescribed by the President for that conduct
had that injury or death occurred to the
unborn child’s mother. "

Please note that the victim is referred to as a child, not a fetus. The pronoun "who" is used to refer to the child, not the pronoun "that" for an inanimate object. A child is a person, not a thing.

Also note that the death of the child is considered "a separate offense." It is not part of the offense of the mother's death. It is separate. That means, even if the mother had survived vut the baby died, it would still be a charge.
 
Eve said:
hmmm as much as I wish that were true, I always was lead to believe that the term "double jeopardy" indicated that an individual cannot be tried twice for the same crime.
WordNet Search - 3.0
Click to expand...
That means if the defendant is found "not guilty" at trial, then he/she can't be tried again in the pursuit of a "guilty" verdict.
 
Reba said:
That means if the defendant is found "not guilty" at trial, then he/she can't be tried again in the pursuit of a "guilty" verdict.
Click to expand...

Right, Reba, but does the term have a different meaning within the military justice system?
 
Reba said:
Actually, it does recognize the humanity of the baby:

"44a. Article 119a.--Death or injury of an
unborn child
a. Text of statute.
(a)(1) Any person subject to this chapter who
engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions
of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby
causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined
in section 1365 of title 18) to, a child, who is in
utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty
of a separate offense under this section and shall,
upon conviction , be punished by such punish -
ment, other than death, as a court-martial may
direct, which shall be consistent with the punishments
prescribed by the President for that conduct
had that injury or death occurred to the
unborn child’s mother. "

Please note that the victim is referred to as a child, not a fetus. The pronoun "who" is used to refer to the child, not the pronoun "that" for an inanimate object. A child is a person, not a thing.

Also note that the death of the child is considered "a separate offense." It is not part of the offense of the mother's death. It is separate. That means, even if the mother had survived vut the baby died, it would still be a charge.
Click to expand...
There is also a provision in the UCMJ as follows;


Source: US CODE: Title 10,919a. Art. 119a. Death or injury of an unborn child

§ 919a. Art. 119a. Death or injury of an unborn child
How Current is This? (a)
(1) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section and shall, upon conviction, be punished by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct, which shall be consistent with the punishments prescribed by the President for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
(2) An offense under this section does not require proof that—
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the accused intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
(3) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall, instead of being punished under paragraph (1), be punished as provided under sections 880, 918, and 919 (a) of this title (articles 80, 118, and 119(a)) for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.
(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are sections 918, 919 (a), 919 (b)(2), 920 (a), 922, 924, 926, and 928 of this title (articles 118, 119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a), 122, 124, 126, and 128).
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
(d) In this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
Click to expand...
 
Ah, rockdrummer. Thanks. That makes sense now. I knew military were considered separate from civilian... but that was about it.
 
souggy said:
Ah, rockdrummer. Thanks. That makes sense now. I knew military were considered separate from civilian... but that was about it.
Click to expand...
No problem. It is unfair but military staff are held to higher standards than civilians.
 
rockdrummer said:
Double Jeopardy Doesn’t Apply To Those In Uniform

Source: Double Jeopardy Doesn?t Apply To Those In Uniform by Military Lawyers - Puckett & Faraj, PC


Here is the loophole;

The sovereign authority of a state government is considered to be different under our U.S. Constitution than the sovereign authority of the federal government, in this case, in the form of the UCMJ.
Click to expand...
Another consideration is that a military member can be tried in a court martial for UCMJ offenses that are not chargeable in a civilian court, even though those charges result from the same event. That is, suppose a sailor murders his wife, then hides out to avoid arrest. Because he was hiding, he missed his ship's deployment. The civil and military courts can charge him with murder but only the military court can additionally charge him with missed movement.

Also, if a military member is found guilty of a civilian crime by a civilian court, he can still face charges that result from that conviction in a military court. Even that time that the military member had to stay in jail for the civilian offense is another military charge against him for being UA. He can serve time in civilian incarceration and then be charged by the military court after he gets out.

Sometimes the military courts will waive jurisdiction for their convenience if they believe the civil court is adequate for the situation. But if they want, the military courts can bring down the hammer on the military member.

The military legal eagles know how to pile on the charges.
 
Reba said:
Another consideration is that a military member can be tried in a court martial for UCMJ offenses that are not chargeable in a civilian court, even though those charges result from the same event. That is, suppose a sailor murders his wife, then hides out to avoid arrest. Because he was hiding, he missed his ship's deployment. The civil and military courts can charge him with murder but only the military court can additionally charge him with missed movement.

Also, if a military member is found guilty of a civilian crime by a civilian court, he can still face charges that result from that conviction in a military court. Even that time that the military member had to stay in jail for the civilian offense is another military charge against him for being UA. He can serve time in civilian incarceration and then be charged by the military court after he gets out.

Sometimes the military courts will waive jurisdiction for their convenience if they believe the civil court is adequate for the situation. But if they want, the military courts can bring down the hammer on the military member.

The military legal eagles know how to pile on the charges.
Click to expand...
Exactly!!
 
Thank you both for the explanation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top