Hacker News Reader

Comment by microcolonel | Hacker News Reader

So when a pregnant woman puts somebody in mortal danger, it is somehow the victim's fault for meeting deadly force with deadly force? I don't think that would fly even here in Canada.

The law may differ on duty to retreat and other matters (though in this case the victim retreated after retaliating), but at the end of the day, there is a circumstance where use of deadly force is justified against a person, whether that person is a pregnant woman or not. You're not meant to simply roll over and die when attacked by a pregnant woman so as not to offend the sensibilities of some random HN commenter.

View on HN

According to the article it was ,,a dispute with another woman over the father of the child''. Of course if it's mortal danger, things are different, but I think it's generally very hard for a pregnant woman to kill another woman without a gun. The death statistics of U.S. compared to other countries don't support the theory that guns are used only in mortal danger.

> ...but I think it's generally very hard for a pregnant woman to kill another woman without a gun

You are extremely wrong in that thought. One wrong bump on the head, and you are a goner. Don't get in a fight, don't start a fight, and don't stay in a fight you won't finish. Two average-build women fighting is perilous for the participants just like two average-build men fighting.

In the heat of an argument, one or the other is going to get the upper hand, and maybe today they don't choose a good time to stop pounding their opponent's head into the pavement. If you aren't willing to defend yourself, you can only hope that your opponent will show mercy when the time comes; I don't think it is really appropriate to ask the victim of an escalating battery to wait and see if they'll be killed once the situation is completely out of their control.

More details will probably become available, but there are circumstances that can be established, under which the charge discussed makes sense, and under which the person who fired the firearm is not guilty of an offence; such as if the pregnant woman is committing assault in the first or second degree.

> The death statistics of U.S. compared to other countries don't support the theory that guns are used only in mortal danger.

What kind of non-sequitur is that? Nobody is making that claim or any statement that could depend on it.

If I follow your logic, lethal force is justified in any physical conflict because of the risk of "one wrong bump to the head."

Depends on the degree of escalation and a tremendous number of other factors, but yes: my understanding is that in Alabama, you do not necessarily need to wait until somebody is obviously trying to kill you to respond with deadly force.

On a personal note, I agree with this. It is unjust to ask people to wait until they're dead to defend themselves, when another person has initiated force that could rapidly become deadly.

It is not uncommon that one pushes another over in anger, and that other is killed. That's not manslaughter, that's murder.

P.S: Be careful mixing up lethal with deadly, or either of those with fatal. There are subtle but important differences.

> It is not uncommon that one pushes another over in anger, and that other is killed.

What, like a cliff? No, I don't think "getting pushed over" is a statistically significant cause of death.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com