Feminists on the horns of a legal dilemma: Special privilege or ROE?  

 

The Evil Genius
Admin
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 1420
31/10/2018 8:39 pm  

On October 19 2018 the Supreme Court of Alabama rendered a decision in: Ex parte Jessie Livell Phillips. Below is a link the entire decision:

https://cases.justia.com/alabama/supreme-court/2018-1160403.pdf?ts=1539966609

On February 27, 2009, Phillips shot and killed his wife Erica who was pregnant at the time of her death and of course her unborn child died. (If the reader is interested in more detailed facts they are in the case above. Page 9/10 contain the statements of Mr. Phillips explaining why he shot his wife---it is what you might expect; she was a loud-mouthed abusive bitch with an attitude of entitlement and Mr. Phillips simply reached the breaking point. But I’ll not belabor that point since it is not the subject of the analysis.)

Jessie Livell Phillips was convicted in the Marshall Circuit Court of the capital offense of murder of "two or more persons" under the Brody Act for the intentional killing of his wife, Erica Phillips and their unborn child ("Baby Doe") "by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct." § 13A-5- 40(a)(10), Ala. Code 1975. This is the transferred intent statute. For example I decide to shoot GregBo but I miss and mistakenly hit Uly. For purposes of intending to kill someone; my intent to kill GregBo is presumed transferred to Uly. Or in this case Phillips intent to kill his wife transferred to the death of his unborn child.

The jury unanimously recommended that he be sentenced to death. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Phillips to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Phillips's conviction but remanded the case for the trial court to address certain defects and errors in its sentencing order. On remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Phillips's sentence of death.

The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed 13 issued raised by the defense—for purposes of my analysis we are only interested in one of those issues. Appeal issue “C” Beginning on page 35. The Defendant Phillips argued that the definition of a "person" set forth in the Brody Act, § 13A-6-1(a)(3), Ala. Code 1975, does not apply to the capital offense of murder of two or more persons set forth in § 13A-5-40(a)(10) or the aggravating circumstance of multiple murders set forth in § 13A-5-49, Ala. Code 1975. Specifically, Phillips contends that the Brody Act definition of a “person” is limited to Chapter 6 of the Alabama Criminal Code, and the charge of murder for his unborn child is under Chapter 5 (Transferred intent).

OK what does this mean? I know "CALL A LAWYER!" Wait I was a lawyer so let me explain: Phillips is arguing that the definition of a “person” for purposes of murder applies ONLY to crimes under chapter 6 of the criminal code BUT he is charged under chapter 5 of the criminal code for two murders one of which is the result of the doctrine of transferred intent. Thus a “person” under chapter 6 is not a “person” under the transferred intent statute of Chapter 5; and since the dead unborn child is not a person it is not a capital offense…and therefore he is not eligible for the death penalty. Got that?  The unborn child is not a person under chapter 5 although it IS a person under chapter 6.

Obviously the Court didn’t buy his argument. They held the definition of a “person” as defined in chapter 6 is incorporated into the definition of a person under chapter 5—thus the unborn child IS a “person”.  Why would Phillip’s attorney make such a ridiculous argument? Simple, Phillip’s life depends upon it. Phillips correctly recognizes that the sole provision of the criminal code that make him eligible for the death penalty was a change to the definition of the word "person"--outside of the capital murder statute—in Section 13A-6-1. The court held Phillips incorrectly argues that the definition of the term 'person' in § 13A-6-1(a)(3), Ala. Code 1975, is limited to only 'Article 1 and Article 2 of Chapter 6 in Title 13A and 'should not be applied to the separate capital-murder statute.'

Thus the dilemma for feminists. They surely insisted upon the “extra” legal protection for unborn children permitting them to be people and thus raising these cases to capital murder/death penalty status BUT what about abortion? Is the unborn child a person for those purposes?  UH OH!

For reference:

Chapter 6: Alabama Code Section 13A-6-2(a), Ala. Code 1975, provides that a person commits the crime of murder if ...with the intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of that person or of another person.' The phrase 'another person' appears twice in the foregoing quote from § 13A-6- 2(a).

Chapter 5: Alabama Code Section 13A–5–40(b) specifies: A person commits the crime of murder if with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of that person or another person....This is a statutory version of the doctrine of transferred intent.

HERE is a shorter version of a similar case out of Ill.:

People v. Alvarez-Garcia, 395 Ill. App. 3d 719, 936 N.E.2d 588, 344 Ill. Dec. 59 (2009). In Alvarez-Garcia, the defendant murdered a pregnant woman. The baby was delivered posthumously and died a few months later. The State prosecuted the defendant for both murders under a theory of transferred intent. The Illinois appellate court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the principle that the death of the unintended victim was a natural and possible consequence of the deliberate shooting of the intended victim under the doctrine of transferred intent "is unaffected by the fact that both the intended victim and the unintended victim are killed." 395 Ill. App. 3d at 732, 936 N.E.2d at 600, 344 Ill. Dec. at 71. The court held that the defendant was properly charged with murder of the infant "because it was a natural and probable consequence of his act of intentionally shooting her mother multiple times while she was in utero." 395 Ill. App. 3d at 733, 936 N.E.2d at 600, 344 Ill. Dec. at 71.

So what is the point of all of this analysis? Let me cut to the chase. Is an unborn child a “person” under the law or not? For purposes of the criminal code in 37 states the answer is yes—but for purposes of legal abortion in those SAME states the answer is no. So for example a pregnant woman is walking into an abortion clinic and just before she goes in someone springs up and hits her gut with a ball bat killing the unborn child. He is guilty of murder because the unborn child is a “person”, but if this doesn’t occur and she goes into the clinic and the child is killed in the customary ripping out of womb manner it ISN’T a person and there is no murder. The woman just pays up and walks out to three martini lunch with her girlfriends. Either way we have a dead child on our hands.

Obviously this result is not only logically absurd but flies in the face of the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. Now the Roe v. Wade decision is based upon a number of erroneous premises chiefly the denial of the status of person-hood for the unborn child. But 37 states recognize that an unborn child IS a person for purposes of the criminal code. So how does this get resolved? Simple again—a liberal feminist’s worst nightmare---the Supreme Court of the US issuing a decision in a case (Like this one) recognizing that unborn children are indeed “persons” guaranteed the full panoply of Constitutional rights and protections. I can hear the crying already!

Will the Phillips case end up before the high court? His attorney will certainly appeal otherwise his client is a goner---Alabama will execute him…his only “out" is for the high court to over-rule the Alabama Supreme Court and determine an unborn child is NOT a person. Of course if they determine that a fetus IS a person and sustain the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court where does that leave Roe? Where does that leave legalized abortion? Where it belongs, in the shitter.

Sure the US Supreme Court COULD punt and fail to grant Cert---just leaving the Alabama decision standing BUT does anyone really think our current court will pass up the chance? The irony of course is that Phillips is a murdering douchbag but he and his case may end up ending the slaughter of millions and saving the lives of millions of children. Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor?


Old Buck
Arbiter
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 1790
01/11/2018 12:14 am  

Now I understand why all the liberals are up in arms and screaming about Kavanaugh's confirmation.  Now I see how the Supreme Court could reverse Roe vs. Wade.

Thank you Sir! 

Do NOT chase tail. Turn yours around and live FREE!


ReplyQuote
Travis3000
Moderator
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 1468
01/11/2018 2:10 am  

This reminds me of a case here in Texas.  A guy gets a chick pregnant, both want said pregnancy to be terminated.  For some reason, be it cost or distance from a clinic, said couple did not have access to or couldn't get the abortion procedure they desired.  What happened next? The man in the relationship literally stomped the womb of his impregnated girlfriend thereby killing the twins located therein.  Guess what? Said man is now in a Texas prison serving a 40 year sentence for killing the fetuses.  


ReplyQuote
uoSʎWodɹɐH
Founder.
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 685
01/11/2018 7:36 am  

Yes Evil Genius thanks for your Legal analysis..  I have re-defined that term for modern Interpretation. Keep in mind this is from the secret cannons of judicial conduct.

tongue in cheek.

1. thinking usually independent of and unaffected by objective reality 2. the process of using legal terms to alter, create or deny reality 3. process used to maintain or assist the status quo, power structure and the resourceful and effective 4. a thought process commonly raised to the level of stupidity while maintaining the appearance of brilliance 5. sometimes called inverted intelligence.
 
That the court did not accept his interpretation would be scary to the pro-abortion people.  A life is a life and all females know they are killing a human. The knowing and willing part is not debated.
Willfully= from Bishopvs US  An evil motive or intent to avoid a known duty or task under the law with a moral certainty.  I know that is a tax case but still I believe all females instinctively understand they have a duty to protect the life of their children.
Somehow they rationalize the willful killing. 
 
L&R

I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at the idiots who misunderstand me! Kind mockery toward the well-intentioned and unfettered cruelty toward all would-be prison guards of my creative possibilities. In this way I learn to revel as much in misunderstanding as in understanding and take pleasure in worthy opponents. Making language fluid, flowing like a river, yet precise and pointed as a dirk, contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful verbal dance—a linguistic martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.


ReplyQuote
MG-ɹǝʍo┴
Founder..
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 2924
01/11/2018 9:16 am  

I live in a deceased body politic detained under CEASE AND DESIST.

As far as I'm concerned murder is perfectly legitimate and legal, I learned it through special due process they used in annihilating the constitution and all intent and worth. 

Fuck the babies, toss them around and catchem on bayonets for all I care!    

Civilized, we're not!

LTMFB!! 

The law is the law, we no longer shape and mold it for our protection, but rather they (the justice system) use it in our master planned annihilation.  

America has legal cancer and it's dying... 

Wave bye bye. that's what I did! 

The constitution is nothing but a filthy fuck rag handed around for lawyers to blow jizzem in! 

They spend allot more time and effort in preserving that toilet document than they ever spent preserving it's meaning in relation to government and the people. 

I live in the NO PERSON SHALL--- ZONE! 

FUCK AMERICA! IT MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT TYRANNY DRIPPING FROM A DIRTY SOCK THE LAWYER'S SHARE IN THE BAR ASSOCIATION!  

Reprobate law makes reprobate people.

Reprobate people kill themselves off with reprobate minds that don't know the difference..

Confusion can be lethal.

Lethal has become the law of this land... 

P.S. Divorce rape is when they use some dude's asshole instead of the dripping sock! They salivate every time wedding bells ring!!!   


ReplyQuote
Hitman
Founder .
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 558
01/11/2018 1:36 pm  

women get the cake and kill it too.

whatever they want the law bends over backwards to oblige them.

screw that.

an unborn baby is alive,

abortion is LEGAL MURDER.

lets not let simple logic ruin their death count though...

men, we are on our own. the best you can hope for is good company along the way. the good company is here.


Beered by #Redpillbible, Uly The Cunning, Greg Honda and 1 people
ReplyQuote
uoSʎWodɹɐH
Founder.
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 685
26/12/2018 9:34 pm  

Law, HA!HA!

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Law

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Judicial%20Efficiency

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=presumption

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=public%20policy

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Common%20Sense

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Modern%20Civil%20Rights

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=general%20honesty

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Male%20Domestication

L&R

I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at the idiots who misunderstand me! Kind mockery toward the well-intentioned and unfettered cruelty toward all would-be prison guards of my creative possibilities. In this way I learn to revel as much in misunderstanding as in understanding and take pleasure in worthy opponents. Making language fluid, flowing like a river, yet precise and pointed as a dirk, contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful verbal dance—a linguistic martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.


ReplyQuote
MG-ɹǝʍo┴
Founder..
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 2924
26/12/2018 10:14 pm  

From the feminist bible and modern law: 

Thou shalt not kill the unborn, it's murder, unless she says so, then it's okay. 

Trickfuckery has become the law!  😜  🤪 


ReplyQuote
Sobieski
Arbiter
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 215
27/12/2018 12:45 am  

The answer is simple,  both.

Just like light is either waves or particles based upon the conditions you measure it in (which experiment you run)  they will decide that it is a life under certain circumstances but not under others. 

 

Excellent legal analysis. 


ReplyQuote
uoSʎWodɹɐH
Founder.
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 685
17/03/2019 2:17 pm  

The flesh has rights and liberty unless it is valuable for the Governments agenda.

Then the flesh is owned by the government issued identity documents called a (person)

Only the flesh lives in fact, the person lives in the fictitious realm of make believe.

Every unborn fetus is short of becoming a person because persons are created by documents.

Birth records created and kept by the Governing body politic at the time of birth starts the process of personalization  of the flesh.

I am not a person.  I am a non-person!  I am a man in possession  of personal identity documents that are incorrect and fraudulent in nature.

The documents cannot be relied upon as being truthful and accurate because they were created by an untrustworthy organization.

I carry them as nothing more than honest truthful accurate evidence of the incompetence of all civil/uncivil  authority.

Cognitive dissonance abounds in authoritative circles. 

everyone is an authority yet no one is responsible and accountable to anyone outside of the circle.

The members are not interested in policing other  members of the circle jerk.  

Refusing to police their own kind is in  the nature of the judicial.

The rapture is a nationwide self created identity crisis where a large %  of the public draw up their own private personal identity documents placing them in the legal domicile of God's kingdom,  where the bonds of parenthood and life begin in the womb. The flesh is alive, yet  the person is fiction. It is not possible to kill a person because the documents used to create/personalize the flesh were never alive to begin with.

L&R

 

I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at the idiots who misunderstand me! Kind mockery toward the well-intentioned and unfettered cruelty toward all would-be prison guards of my creative possibilities. In this way I learn to revel as much in misunderstanding as in understanding and take pleasure in worthy opponents. Making language fluid, flowing like a river, yet precise and pointed as a dirk, contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful verbal dance—a linguistic martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.


ReplyQuote
The Evil Genius
Admin
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 1420
17/03/2019 7:17 pm  

You guys have done a great job with this thread! One of the funniest silliest things I hear from women is: "ITS my body, MY choice". Really? The body INSIDE your's ISN'T yours, rather it belong to ANOTHER person...don't believe me? How come the baby has different DNA? 

AND

IF it IS your body--then why does everyone ELSE HAVE TO PAY $$$ for your choice? 


ReplyQuote
Uly The Cunning
Admin
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 2182
21/03/2019 6:07 pm  

With the female's desire to murder their children put at the expense of the tax payers, we are forced to help pay for these murders. I have seen excuses from many female's on why they desire the opportunity to murder their children, and it all comes down to selfishness and lack of self-control. These females are building a trap for themselves, but it will not spring until it benefits the government. Once it does, the law can be interpreted either way to take advantage of the situation and take even more from the people at the people's expense. This is just another example of females being useful idiots because they don't function by logic but by emotion.

"Remember, you're fighting for this woman's honor, which is probably more than she ever did."
Groucho Marx: Duck Soup (1933)


Beered by #Redpillbible
ReplyQuote
#Redpillbible
Founder..
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 2355
21/03/2019 6:18 pm  

Hell is packed with not only men, but a whole lot of women too. Hundreds of millions of babies have been aborted worldwide for God knows how many years,  both male and female babies.

One of my jobs when I die and go to Heaven is to be a father to all these aborted sons and daughters MURDERED by their mothers here on Earth.

And I will be happy to be a father to all these children, since I can’t have a real family in this hell hole we call Earth, one of the Lords Heavenly Blessings will be having a Godly family, something that was stolen from me/us and these kids while we where here on Earth, but these Satanic Devil Worshipers won’t be able to pull that off there, they can enjoy their Demonic Orgy in hell for all eternity, and no, not the kind of fun orgy they think they’re gonna have.

Im the dead babies Patron Saint.

Thanks feminism.

#Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. (Revelation 3:3)


Beered by Uly The Cunning
ReplyQuote
Advertisements