Shooting at Ft Hood; 7 dead, 20+wounded

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

still not legally recognized as a person. All it matters is that the woman is pregnant - regardless of baby's stage of development. That's why USMJ code has a very wordy interpretation for it - possibly for the sake of political correctness or reducing legal loophole.

an analogy - just because you can be charged with cruelty against dog doesn't mean dog is recognized as a person with legal rights.
 
Fort Hood suspect charged with murder
Fort Hood, Texas (CNN) -- Maj. Nidal Hasan has been charged with 13 preliminary counts of premeditated murder stemming from last week's shooting at Fort Hood Army Post, an Army investigator said Thursday.

Army Criminal Investigation Command spokesman Chris Grey said the investigation continues and Hasan, 39, may face additional charges at court-martial.

He said Hasan remains hospitalized from gunshot wounds he received from two police officers who responded to the November 5 shooting.

Hasan is accused of killing 13 people -- a dozen soldiers and a civilian -- at the post's processing center, where soldiers were preparing to deploy to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Dozens others were wounded, and 12 remain hospitalized, Col. John Rossi said Thursday.

The FBI has said that its investigations indicate the "alleged gunman acted alone and was not part of a broader terrorist plot."

Hasan's civilian attorney, retired Army Col. John Galligan, said that he has spoken with his client, but that Hasan was heavily sedated.

"I think the closest thing that indicates that there's a court-martial in the works is last night ... I did receive an e-mail from the prosecutor at Fort Hood indicating to me that the pass privileges and leave privileges of Maj. Hasan had been revoked," Galligan said.
Click to expand...
 
He was not part of a broader terrorist plot.....
 
updates from yahoo news

Army: Fort Hood suspect charged with murder
Army: Fort Hood suspect charged with murder - Yahoo! News

FORT HOOD, Texas – The Army psychiatrist suspected in a deadly rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, has been charged in a military court with 13 counts of premeditated murder.

U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command spokesman Chris Grey told a news conference Thursday at the Texas base that additional charges may also be filed against Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

Hasan is suspected of killing 12 soldiers and one civilian in last Thursday's shooting spree at Fort Hood. He was shot and wounded by two police officers at the base, and remains in recovery at an Army hospital in San Antonio. His attorney says he was read the charges at the hospital.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Military officials say the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 and wounding 29 in last week's shooting rampage at his military post in Texas will face 13 charges of premeditated murder under the military's legal system. The decision makes him eligible for the death penalty if convicted.

A formal announcement about the charges against Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is expected later Thursday. Two U.S. military officials described the charges to the AP on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the case publicly.

The officials said it is not yet decided whether to charge Hasan with a 14th count of murder related to the death of the unborn child of a pregnant shooting victim.
Click to expand...
 
The officials said it is not yet decided whether to charge Hasan with a 14th count of murder related to the death of the unborn child of a pregnant shooting victim.
Click to expand...

I hope they will charge him
 
rockdrummer - which branch did you serve in and what was your position?

*Happy Veteran's Day to you and Reba. Late I know.
 
In common law jurisprudence, harm to a baby was not actionable either civil and criminal law unless the baby was "quickened," which meant stirring in the mother's womb. This standard was codified and established by case law in most states.

I'm not sure how military law applies here. It may be different. You need to look up the defintion of "child in uetero."
 
sallylou said:
In common law jurisprudence, harm to a baby was not actionable either civil and criminal law unless the baby was "quickened," which meant stirring in the mother's womb. This standard was codified and established by case law in most states.

I'm not sure how military law applies here. It may be different. You need to look up the defintion of "child in uetero."
Click to expand...
Military law applies because he is in the military and per the UCMJ child in uetero is clearly defined. See below.

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...
 
Jiro said:
still not legally recognized as a person. All it matters is that the woman is pregnant - regardless of baby's stage of development. That's why USMJ code has a very wordy interpretation for it - possibly for the sake of political correctness or reducing legal loophole.

an analogy - just because you can be charged with cruelty against dog doesn't mean dog is recognized as a person with legal rights.
Click to expand...
A "child" is not a dog or any thing else. A "child" is a person.

The UCMJ definition isn't "wordy"--it's precise. It certainly isn't politically correct. If it were politically correct it would use the term "fetus", and it would differentiate by trimesters and viability.

Please refer to rockdrummer's post "US CODE: Title 10,919a. Art. 119a. Death or injury of an unborn child".

It doesn't matter what anyone's stance is on abortion; the UCMJ is what it is--military law.

It doesn't matter whether or not you accept it; the UCMJ will continue to be enforced.
 
He's already been charged...now let's get on with the execution
 
Hey, let's not sugar-coat this, lol.
 
it's funny... exactly how do we define a terrorist?

If a man loses his job and shoots people, does that make him a terrorist? If a man feels violated because of his religious beliefs and shoots people, does that make him a terrorist?
 
I believe that if one's violent actions are intended to make a political or religious statement, they are terroristic in nature. (yes, this includes Christian extremists that bomb abortion clinics)
 
Jiro said:
still not legally recognized as a person. All it matters is that the woman is pregnant - regardless of baby's stage of development. That's why USMJ code has a very wordy interpretation for it - possibly for the sake of political correctness or reducing legal loophole.

an analogy - just because you can be charged with cruelty against dog doesn't mean dog is recognized as a person with legal rights.
Click to expand...

Yup, 13 is died as official but they will probably going charge as double homicide for killing of pregnant woman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top