No murder charge in baby's death

Posted by sls on March 21, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How can you say an 8 1/2 month baby in gestation is not a human being. That baby had a heart beat and was 2 weeks from a due date. This really makes you wonder about where that stupid judge came from. The judge needs to step down cause he obviously has no clue about human life. Im sure if it was his wife he would of felt different.

Posted by TCB on March 21, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Judges are bound by the law. Personal feelings (such as yours) have no place in the courtroom. The law says life begins at birth. A baby that is not born is not a human. If you don't like the ruling, change the law. Do not blame the judge, his hands were tied. How he "felt" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Posted by DahmersCookbook on March 21, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If alchol was involved it would have been manslaughter, but the eluding charge suggests he is A criminal. Absence of justice.

Posted by mytofi on March 21, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Remember - legalese requires a lot of very specific definitions. I don't think the judge declared the fetus "not a human being", but did declare the fetus "not a person or child" in terms of the law and social terms.

Posted by fishtanksamurai on March 21, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dan Caplis will not be pleased!

Posted by TCB on March 21, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mytofi, you are correct. My mistake; I should not have said "human." Regardless of the term used, the judge made the correct ruling under the law. Had he ruled otherwise, he would have violated his oath and would have been reversed by an appellate court.

Posted by TCB on March 21, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dahmer, if alcohol was invloved it would NOT have been manslaughter. You can't have manslaughter without a man. The analysis is the same regardless of the level of charge. You can't have murder in any degree without a victim. Plain and simple. No person, no murder.

Posted by MarineGrunt on March 21, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Never miss a chance to open your come cooler and flame the current administration lcdrjjxant, eh Comrade!!

Your insight was nothing short of breathtaking and the level of douchebaggery is unparalleled.
Keep up the good work, mental midget!!!

Posted by buffsblg on March 21, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sis is like many people on this board who believe that their personal morality should be imposed upon everyone else as a matter of law and that if a judge follows the law instead of that morality the judge should be crucified. This is a matter for the legislature to address and other states have done so. It might be constitutional to make the killing of a fetus a crime under certain very specific circumstances, but they have not. To blame the judge indicates a complete misunderstanding of the entire system.

Posted by DahmersCookbook on March 21, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn...

Persons have been charged for the unborn, prior convictions create enough bias to ignor the "Law". Who wouldn't appeal if the option was there, self-serving.

Posted by Shaupeen on March 21, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sls, thanks for the funny post this early in the morning. I needed a good laugh. It must be hard existing in a world where other people might disagree with your views. But maybe you can get all of them to quit their jobs just because they don't share the same opinions as you. Good luck with that.

Posted by kes1 on March 21, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe it is state to state. Scott Peterson was charged with 2 counts of murder in California, his wife and UNBORN 8 month old fetus.

Posted by Shaupeen on March 21, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, so we settled THAT question. Thank goodness we don't have to discuss that anymore...

Posted by TCB on March 21, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

kes1, of course its state to state. But we only live in one state. Therefore, we only follow the laws of that one state. THe complete lack of knowledge regarding this country's legal system is astounding. It's called federalism: states make certain decisions for themselves. What applies in California may not apply here.

Posted by Truth on March 21, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Another in a long line of great judicial rulings, such as Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson.

Posted by OhBrother on March 21, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the clarfication TCB. I know it astounds you that everyone doesn't know what you do about the leagal system, maybe one day we will be on your level. One day...

Posted by Lorren on March 21, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Um Truth? Just a point of clarificaiton here - Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson were both FEDERAL cases having to do with racial bias. Not unborn babies. The judge in question here was spot on. All he had to use was the current interpretation of the law. The only time, I believe, that the federal court can change or overrule a state law is if that law is in direct contradiction to the US Constitution or a federally-mandated law.

Posted by ywammike on March 21, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Clearly under the law this man was not guilty of murder at the time of the crash. The issue here is really the unjust law. A child in the womb is fully human, made in the image of God, and fully a person. However, the judge is bound by the law and the law says that the act had to be done to someone who was both born and alive. The law does not currently protect unborn persons. The judge would be engaging in judicial activism if he were to rule his own opinion, which is what conservative and pro-life people do not want.

To address another issue, it is the role of the legislature to draft into law their morality and the morality of their constituents. If you really assert that morality should not be imposed upon anyone else through the law, then logically you cannot argue for a system of laws at all, as all laws are drafted from the morality of people (i.e. "do not steal, do not murder, etc.") Therefore, I support the ruling of this judge, and also the immediate moving of the legislature to make laws and ammend state constitutions to extend the legal definition of person-hood to include unborn children - according to their morality and the will of their constituents.

Posted by BiotchMAMA on March 21, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pray for the unborn child, mom, dad, grandma, grandpa, cousins, friends, aunts, uncles, and other "humans" that would have prospered from the birth of this child. The child was healthy enough to survive 8 1/2 months in its mothers womb, but not "human" enough to be deemed a child. Law of man.

Posted by frogarch on March 21, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is this world coming to? This ignorant judge will one day meet his maker and then he will be judged for the immoral person that he was or is he a person??????

Posted by pjhdisfan on March 21, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds like a Judge needs to be removed from office. Plan on a vote of NO for re-election.

Posted by ywammike on March 21, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Prayer is indeed the right response. Please see bound4life dot com, this movement seeks to pray that God to end abortion and that a child in the womb is fully recognized as a child.

Posted by freethought on March 21, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hahahaha. Imagine there is no heaven, it's easy if you try...I will pray to "god" that anti-abortionists stop killing people in the name of him. I might even go for not having demonstrations at soldier's funerals in the name of him. Why do "pro-lifers" overwhelmingly support war and the death penalty? Has "god" specifically told them to believe this way...and why? Live and let live, I think is the term. MYOB is another.

Posted by fiesty on March 21, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

An 8 1/2 month old "fetus" is capable of living outside the womb. Once it was delivered, it was an independent entity- a child. The child died from injuries substained earlier. So I don't understand the judge's rationale that the child wasn't a person- at the time of death, the baby girl was a living independent baby that would have lived if it weren't for accident. It's not the same as a miscarriage induced by an accident.

Posted by Mtn__Gator on March 21, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fiesty

That's the point, at time of crash Baby Lileigh Lehnen was unborn and theyby not considered to be a baby. It's truely an unfortunate event, but even though they did not get the murder charge on him for the unborn baby, I have a feeling they will maximize the penalties for the other counts against him. This idiot won't be free for a very long time, if at all. I would prefer he get the death penalty, no reason for us to pay for a scumbag like this to live out his natural life.

Posted by BiotchMAMA on March 21, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

freethought, you are entitled to your own opinion as is everyone else on this planet. Put yourself in that womans shoes, she spent 8 1/2 months of her life already being a mother to this child, but a "judge" deemed her "fetus" not a CHILD of hers only a fetus, a non living entity, what the hell kind of reasoning is that? What has our world come to? She was 2 weeks from having a healthy baby, and an accident terminated that. Don't people get convicted of murder if they mortally injure someone and that injury results in death?

Posted by ywammike on March 21, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let me ask you freethought, do you equate innocent life with the life of the guilty? Pro-lifers (at least logically consistent ones) believe in that it is wrong to shed innocent blood. They do not believe that it is wrong to shed blood. They believe that a child in the womb is no different than an innocent two year old.

Maybe pro-lifers should be re-named "pro-justice". Justice for the unborn (the right to live) and justice toward murderers (death). And what does the war have anything to do with whether or not a child in the womb is a person? I think you are not comparing apples to apples, freethought.

Posted by Shaupeen on March 21, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, pray. Pray your little hearts out. Then, when that doesn't change a single thing, please DON'T go kill doctors, you stinking hypocrites.

Posted by mmmark217 on March 21, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I happen to agree whole heartedly with TCB. It's unfortunate that this fetus died, but according to "Specific Case Law", this judge had to rule the way he ruled. I think it is a shame that so many people are uninformed about the laws of this state. Perhaps a high school course in Substanative Law should be required of every child so that they can learn that the law has to be changed by the people and not by Judges.

Posted by Scott on March 21, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TCB,

Your observations are correct in general, however in this specific case from the news report: "...was born alive but died hours later of asphyxia." Hence the baby should have been considered a person under the law. She was outside of the mother's womb, breathing, and well into being "viable" at 8 1/2 months gestation. Once again a judge f@#$s up. If the baby had died within the mother's womb and the medical staff had to remove a dead fetus, then the judge would have been correct. But not this time.

Scott

Posted by TCB on March 21, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fiesty, you don't understand the judge's rationale? You are not listening; THERE IS NO RATIONALE INVOLVED. It is the letter of the law! My goodness, why is this so hard? If you don't like the law, work on changing it through the appropriate, time-honored channels. Judges HAVE TO UPHOLD THE LAW!

If I got a speeding ticket for going 6 miles over the speed limit, should I be able to complain that I didn't understand the judge's rationale? It's cut and dried, black and white. There is no gray area here. I was either speeding or I wasn't. That baby was either born or it wasn't.

Look, it sucks, ok? But it is the law. Please understand that it isn't the judges fault. I had to teach you this lesson in the adverse possession case; did you already forget? Quit blaming judges when you don't like the law they have sworn to uphold.

Posted by TCB on March 21, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Scott, you are mistaken. The baby died from trauma suffered while in the womb, not outside. Had the baby suffered trauma after it had been born, that would be murder. You have to look at the time of birth vs. the time of the criminal act. Criminal act happens before birth: no murder. Criminal act happens after birth: murder.

Posted by wow on March 21, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The judge was right in his ruling, based on his interpretation of the law, which was clear cut enough, that any one could understand it.
But fiesty made a really good point. Maybe a different charge would have worked better than homicide?

Posted by ywammike on March 21, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice straw man, shaupeen. Honestly, what reputable pro-life group does not openly denounce that kind of violence. The vigilante-type murders of abortion doctors are reprehensible to say the least, and are certainly not representative of the pro-life movement any more than David Karesh is representative of most mainstream churches in America.

Posted by fiesty on March 21, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TCB- no, YOU don't get it. The judge would be justified (by the letter of the law) in saying the fetus wasn't a person if it died in the womb. However, the fetus was born and ALIVE for several hours- at that point, it WAS a person.

Posted by Scott on March 21, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TCB,

I now understand the DA's comment about this being a "murky part of the law."

We should get the law changed so that it explicitly states that when a crime occurs and the fetus is viable (as in this case), then a crime has occurred against a person.

I'm sure that McNulty is very proud of itself. It was able to get a scumbag off from a murder charge. Luckily for McNulty, it will not be losing any sleep over this. You see, all traces of morality are removed from aspiring prostitutes (lawyers) in their first semester of law school.

Scott

Posted by Shaupeen on March 21, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Funny, they're all carried out in the name of the same guy...and now that you mention it, didn't Karesh go through all his motions after reading the same book? Interesting. Straw man my a$$.

I'm sure the distinction you make means a lot to the dead doctors' families.

But please, pray away.

Posted by TCB on March 21, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fiesty,

Do me a favor. Sit down and draw a timeline. Now, your first event (closer to the left of the timeline) is going to be the criminal act. Your second event is going to be the birth of the child (to the right of the first event). Now, go get a three year old and have him explain to you which event occured first. Once you have that concept clear in your head, go back and read the law.

It should then become apparent to you that the defendant cannot be charged for killing someone that did not exist (legally speaking).

Posted by fiesty on March 21, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You're discussing the second half of the issue (charging), which is murky, when I am addressing the first issue- the judge ruling the infant was not a person. This might be valid for a fetus still in the womb, but not for an infant living and breathing on their own. How hard is this to understand? Ask your same three year old if a baby he can hold is alive or not.

Posted by TCB on March 21, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The baby became a person after it was "murdered?" Is that what you're trying to tell me. Can't have it both ways, feisty. You really need to talk to your legislator because its the LAW that you are struggling with. Until that law changes, you will never, ever be right.

I know you didn't draw that timeline that fast; I hid your crayons. Now don't come back until you find your crayons and draw that timeline.

Hint: there in the library next to the Colorado Revised Statutes.

Posted by ywammike on March 21, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Shaupeen, do you also believe that all black men are criminals because a black man once committed a crime? Do you believe that all whites are racist because the KKK still exists? It's amazing to me that you cannot make a distinction between some crazy wacko's action and mainstream-non-violent legitimate movements. It is really no different than distinguishing between peaceful Muslims and the radical movements that murder in the name of Allah, it's not that hard (but more difficult admittidly for the family members of terrorist victims).

Perhaps your point is well taken, though. In our praying, praying for the healing and vindication of the families of the dead doctors is in order. So on that note I will pray on...

Posted by BiotchMAMA on March 21, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fiesty, are u for real? Had this been your child 2 weeks from delivery, would you consider it alive or not, this child would have been able to live outside the womb under "normal" circumstances, like say the mom had not been injured causing injury to the UNBORN CHILD, key word being UNBORN. "fetuses" have been known to survive at 4 mos gestation, Maybe less, who are we to determine.

Posted by fiesty on March 21, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TCB- the point is that the baby was ALIVE and an independent entity when it died. Are you arguing that from the time it was delivered (fetus taken outside the womb) until the time the baby died, that it wasn't a person for those few hours? It was a person *then*, though in the eyes of the law, it wasn't prior to that time.

BiotchMAMA- what the heck are you talking about? I'm arguing the same thing!

Posted by Jimminy on March 21, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The personhood amendment will put paid to this one....

Posted by TCB on March 21, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, feisty. You're so coherent that people don't even know you're on their side. Weird.

For the life of me, I cannot understand what you don't get. Obviously, no amount of reason is going to get through to you. It happened with adverse possession and it's happening here. I'm sure it will happen the next time you don't understand a law.

I have successfully taught law to thousands of people but you can't be taught. I wash my hands of you and your ignorance...

Posted by BiotchMAMA on March 21, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sorry fiesty, I took a few words you said and used them out of context. This is just so irritating to me. IT WAS A BABY, a baby that will never be able to argue "life" for itself.

Posted by BiotchMAMA on March 21, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

THE LAW YOU SAY? MANS LAW? So if a law is made by man, we all need to follow it and agree with it.

Posted by fiesty on March 21, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, BiotchMAMA, according to TCB, from the time the baby was delivered, to the time it died in the neo-intensive care unit, it wasn't a person...

Posted by ywammike on March 21, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"speak for those who cannot speak for themselves" Prov. 31:8

Someone is responsible to argue life for the one that cannot argue for itself...

Posted by ywammike on March 21, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

...Incidentally, in regard to the continuing conversation -

I don't believe there is a legal argument to be made here that this was murder, as the language of the law is clear that the person had to be both born and alive at the time of the crime for a murder to have taken place.

There is, however, a moral argument to be made. Clearly it was a child that died no matter what your position on the personhood of a fetus. Surley in the grand scheme of things this man bears some responsiblity for the ending of this child's life, irregardless of the child's status at the time of the crime in the eyes of current law on the books.

Posted by BiotchMAMA on March 21, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ya know, maybe just maybe, it wasn't murder, i mean it was an accident, BUT, the child still died, it was born, it died later, it, at the very least, was an act that was caused by the carelessness of another, and therefore should be punishable. Maybe not by 1,000,000,000 years in the slammer, but punishable.

Posted by fiesty on March 21, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yvammike- you're right. The law is arguing that the baby wasn't a person, though it lived independently for a few hours and died, simply because it was harmed while still in the womb. Which is nonsensical. They should have deemed the baby a "person" from its birth until its death, (obvious common sense!), even if they couldn't prosecute for the injury because it happened while the baby was still in the womb. Hopefully the parents can sue for emotional distress, in addition to the accident charges. TCB should know what, since he teaches law.

The driver definitely has moral culpability here. At least the parents were able to hold their "non-person" for a few hours before the baby died.

Posted by Shaupeen on March 21, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whatever helps you sleep at night, ywammike.

Posted by buffsblg on March 21, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fiesty, and those like him (or her) might look at the statute before having an opinion. The fact that the child was born alive is not the defining factor. The statute, C.R.S. 18-3-101(passed by the legislature not enacted by the judge) says:

(1) "Homicide" means the killing of a person by another.

(2) "Person", when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who had been born and was alive at the time of the homicidal act.

The key language is "was alive at the time of the homicidal act". Here the act was the car accident. That occurred before the child was born. The judge only applied the language of the statute.It seems like the DA (who everyone in Mesa County knows wants to move up politically), was trying to stretch the law here.

Other states do have statutes that allow charging for the death of a fetus and those have survived legal challenge. This is an issue for the legislature and those on here who have attacked the judge are simply ignorant. By the way, this guy is still facing about 30 years in prison so if he is guilty, he is hardly walking away free.

By the way Scott, I know McNulty and he is twice the human being you believe you are.I do not know what some lawyer did to you, but you really need to get over it.

Posted by BiotchMAMA on March 21, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ywammike, do you have any children

Posted by BiotchMAMA on March 21, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and if you do have children, did you enjoy them as little people when they were in the womb of the mother, or in your womb. I don't know if you are male or female, obviously not female because you lack any means of motherhood feelings.

Posted by BiotchMAMA on March 21, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess for some ignorance IS really bliss

Posted by fiesty on March 21, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

buffsblg- you obviously don't get what I posted earlier. According to the law, no crime was committed because, at the time of the accident, the baby was unborn. That's the law, even though we don't like it. What we are arguing is the non-sensical statements by certain people that the baby doesn't qualify as a person from the time of its birth to the time of its death.

What we need to do is get this law changed. The question is how and what parameters. I would think that if a child is capable of living independently outside the womb, that would be a good point. Thoughts?

Posted by TCB on March 21, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ywammike,

I don't agree with everything you say, but your arguments are consistent, logical, and well-thought-out. It has been nice reading your posts because they actually stimulate thought.

Kudos to you; this board could certainly use more people like you. You make me wish I hadn't devolved into that idiotic spat with Feisty.

You seem like a man (or woman) that consistently takes the high road and stays above the namecalling in order to get your point across, however much I might disagree with it.

Thank you for the breath of fresh air.

buffsblg:

Not only are your posts rational and logical, but they are actually right.

You two are the only people worth talking to one here...

Posted by buffsblg on March 21, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sorry if I misstated your opinion fiesty, I was reacting to others on here who criticized the judge in ignorance.

I took a quick look at the California statute and it simply makes it a crime to kill a fetus unless it is part of a legal abortion and the mother did not consent. I have no real problem with that broad a definition. The Abortion debate is about the right of a woman to determine her body. If the death of the fetus is without the consent of the mother, I have no problem with the statute protecting the fetus,no matter at what stage.

Posted by ywammike on March 21, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BiotchMAMA - I am not a mother or father. I did have a son that I placed for adoption many years ago. I long for the day that I will become a father. I did not intend to be insensitive with my arguments.

TCB - thank you for your kind words. I also will continue to ponder what you have had to say.

Posted by theQ on March 21, 2008 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Neither person or child" under state law....thats your problem right there...idiots making laws that say a 8 month old living being inside a body not a person or child...you people put them in office so i guess you can't complain.

Posted by jlstaud on March 21, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why are we talking about some judge or a stupid law that needs to be more clearly defined. What we should be talking about here is the fact that an expectant mother lost her baby because of someone elses carelesness. My wife is pregnant and was recently in an car accident. Thankfully she is fine, but I cannot begin to imagine the pain and suffering this mother is going through. My heart goes out to her. If nothing else she should be allowed to file a civil suit. Nothing will ever replace that child, but some kind of justice needs to be served here. What a sad situation.

Posted by Queen_Gorgo on March 21, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by BiotchMAMA on March 21, 2008

"fetuses" have been known to survive at 4 mos gestation, Maybe less, who are we to determine.

I'd ask you to provide evidence to support this statement, but I won't because you can't.

ONE 22 weeker is known to have survived, survival is ~20% at 23 weeks, and the generally accepted point of viability is 24 weeks.

Posted by Fresh on March 21, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

did this man intentionally hard this mother to be ?

what would you people who think the fetus was an actual living person at the time of the accident like to have seen done to the man who caused the accident ?

would it make you feel better if he was executed or thrown in jail for this offense ?

I personally think this store is sorely misreported by the news, and it appears the judge ruled the only way he could.

Posted by joggle on March 21, 2008 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The legislature should ammend this law, but it probably will be difficult because they would need to set a specific point in time at which the fetus is considered a human being. For starters they could agree that a baby capable of living outside of the mother's womb is a human being--I believe everyone basically agrees on that point so it shouldn't be too controversial. I would just worry that the pro-life group would press to have even younger fetuses declared as human beings so that they couldn't be aborted--but of course then you run into federal Constitutional problems as currently interpreted.

Posted by jlstaud on March 21, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Fresh you're missing the point. No this guy didn't intentionally set out to hurt the mother, but neither does someone who is convicted of vehicular manslaughter when they're in an accident. If I drive a car and fall asleep at the wheel then run into someone and kill or injur them I'm still responsible for my action. The reality here is that someone hit a pregnant woman and now she has lost her baby. There needs to be some kind of accountability for this mans actions regardless of his intentions. Any human being with half a brain can understand this.

Posted by Fresh on March 21, 2008 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jlstaud,
Of couse he should be accountable for his actions, but is he responsible for MURDER?

according to the law NO.

I suppose this would also fall in to the category of " anyone with half a brain would understand this " .

Posted by rickg19611 on March 21, 2008 at 9:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The abortion crowd are cheering this ruling just as loudly as the Brownshirts in Germany in the 1930s cheered the German courts ruling that they could kill Jews.

Just as much as slaveowners who claimed that blacks were not human, cheered the ruling of a scumbag American court in the Dred Scott case.

Those who support an idiot judge have blood on their hands. Perhaps someday they will gain enough humanity and intelligence to see it.

Posted by Nico on March 21, 2008 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Judge Richard Gurley absolutely will find out that a human being is a human being inside, or outside, of the womb. It is written, "all knees will bow." He was in a position to make a ruling. Clearly, if the child was born a month earlier and was in the car in a car seat it would have been murder. The child's "car seat" makes absolutely no difference. May the Creator have mercy on Gurley's soul, but especially on the children who are destroyed every day by 'people' who want to commit murder just because it is convenient for them. Shame on all who make a decision to kill humans just because a man-made law says it is OK.

Posted by jlstaud on March 22, 2008 at 3:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fresh,

I find it somewhat humorous that all you "defenders of the law" seem to jump on the bandwagon every time you have the chance to diminish the value of a human life. Please spare me the obligatory comment that you're thinking about right now because everyone in this posting section knows that a baby, not a fetus, at 8 and half months IS a real person and should be entitled to certain unalienable rights like the rest of us regardless of how the law is written. The reality is the law is wrong and instead of everyone in this discussion defending this judge we should be outraged and calling for the law to be changed. However this is not the case. If people, that means you, me and everyone else in this discussion would quit defending the law over the sanctity of life we might stand the chance of getting this right in the future.

I don't know if you are a man or a woman or if you've ever had a child, but try to put yourself in the mothers shoes for just one moment. If that was your baby, oops I mean fetus, you'd be outraged at this decision and sickened by the moronic comments in this forum. Earlier you asked what all of us would have done to the person that caused this accident, well he needs to be held accountable for his actions. He caused the accident, He was negligent, He is responsible for the death of this baby, He has ruined this poor woman's life, He should have to pay. I don't know what that looks like. I don't know if it is a fine or jail time or what but he must be accountable for the death and destruction that he caused because of his own carelessness. That is the only fair thing to do here. Lets quit defending the rights of the criminal and start protecting the rights of the victim!

Posted by Blair on March 22, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to agree that the judge in this case ruled to the law as written, but, I am dismayed by the number of comments calling for his head. If he had ruled the opposite, he would be vilified as an activist judge, and again there would be calls for his head. The law is not perfect, the judge is not perfect and people are not perfect.
This circumstance may be a reason to call for a change in the definition of “person”, but, it also calls for some logical thought prior to jumping on any bandwagon. At what point in time is a fetus defined as a person? What are the future ramifications? What new legal issues will come of this? You cannot demand a change without thinking of the consequences. Defining the point of “personhood” at conception creates even more legal issues such as property rights, medical treatment rights and a host of many other “rights” along with untold rights of the mother and father. Consider artificial or medically induced pregnancy or termination of that pregnancy. Where will it start and where does it end?
I don’t know all the particulars of this “accident”, but, I have to ask why a person would be charged with murder for an “accident”? Would not the DA fall into the category of “activist”? What about the coroner? Is he ruling based on his beliefs or the law? Have we lost sight of the definition of an accident or is there no such thing in our litigious society? I have seen at least two calls in these postings for filling a lawsuit. Must there always be some one held accountable? Must there always be a victim whose legal rights have been trampled on? Why have we come to this mentality that “SOME ONE HAS TO PAY”? Accidents happen. Is that not how we, as individuals, learn? You trip, you fall, you pick yourself up and you learn from the experience.