Court Clears Way for Egg Rights Showdown

Damocles said:
This is incorrect. If he were to... Oh let's say... Hit her car while DUI, and she lost the developing progeny but not her life, he could then be charged for murder.
Click to expand...
I don't believe so, Damo, not the law that Peterson was charged under....let me go get it, so I can post it for you. Though I do believe it should be a law....in the case of the accident... and then that would be voluntary manslaughter NOT murder

care
 
Care4all said:
I don't believe so, Damo, not the law that Peterson was charged under....let me go get it, so I can post it for you. Though I do believe it should be a law....in the case of the accident... and then that would be voluntary manslaughter NOT murder

care
Click to expand...
After eight weeks, in California, if he were to kill the developing progeny during a crime it would be murder. And in most states, including California, death during a DUI is murder not manslaughter.

It wouldn't matter if it was the same law Peterson was charged under, it was the law as explained by the California lawyer on the radio during a discussion of this exact topic.
 
Damocles said:
But it is the law. They aren't charged for murder because they killed the mother, they are charged with murder for killing the developing progeny on its own.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make any sense. How can someone be charged for murder against something that if someone INTENTIONALLY kills during an abortion isn't murder? Hasn't anyone appealed to the supreme court about this contradiction?
 
Watermark said:
It doesn't make any sense. How can someone be charged for murder against something that if someone INTENTIONALLY kills during an abortion isn't murder? Hasn't anyone appealed to the supreme court about this contradiction?
Click to expand...
Nope. The assumption is that after 8 weeks, they surely know they are pregnant and could have made the decision to abort by that time. If the progeny is lost without their consent and by direct action of another it is murder, or manslaughter, etc. depending on the crime.
 
Care4all said:
No one has been charged EVER IN HISTORY for killing a fertilized egg, I repeat NO ONE. And Scott peterson could not be charged with killing a fertilized egg.

Scott peterson, in fact could not be charged for killing a viable fetus either, UNLESS HE KILLED THE FETUS'S MOTHER, which he did, then he had an added charge, under california law in 2001, which labels the ''baby to be'' a "victim", a human victim, not a person that has achieved personhood by taking their first breath.

Just an FYI.

Care
Click to expand...

http://www.kxmc.com/t/minnesota/119792.asp
 
Damocles said:
After eight weeks, in California, if he were to kill the developing progeny during a crime it would be murder. And in most states, including California, death during a DUI is murder not manslaughter.

It wouldn't matter if it was the same law Peterson was charged under, it was the law as explained by the California lawyer on the radio during a discussion of this exact topic.
Click to expand...

That's also stupid, because the death was through negligence, not intention, as murder has traditionally required. The person intoxicated may not even be aware of what he was doing at the time. If you're going to make a law contradictory like that, just put everyone in jail for life for DUI, or life for drinking.
 
Ok, Scott was charged with the death of the victim, connor peterson, because he committed a felony, which in this case was murdering Laci..... but if he had committed another felony somehow, and this felony resulted in the killing of Connor, and she was not killed it would still be ok to charge him with it....

california law...12022.9. (a) Any person who, during the commission or attempted commission of a felony, knows or reasonably should know that the victim is pregnant, and who, with intent to inflict injury, and without the consent of the woman, personally inflicts injury upon a pregnant woman that results in the termination of the pregnancy shall, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed by the felony or attempted felony of which the person has been convicted, be punished by an additional term of five years in the state prison. The additional term provided in this subdivision shall not be imposed unless the fact of that injury is charged in the accusatory pleading and admitted or found to be true by the trier of fact.
Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as affecting the applicability of subdivision (a) of Section 187 of the Penal Code.
Click to expand...
 
Watermark said:
That's also stupid, because the death was through negligence, not intention, as murder has traditionally required. The person intoxicated may not even be aware of what he was doing at the time. If you're going to make a law contradictory like that, just put everyone in jail for life for DUI, or life for drinking.
Click to expand...
Vehicular Homicide would be the exact charge. The assumption is the person should have decided to ensure they would take other transport and therefore made a direct decision to put others in danger. These laws came into effect mostly because of Federal Highway funding. Like the change from 1.0 to .08...
 
Care4all said:
Ok, Scott was charged with the death of the victim, connor peterson, because he committed a felony, which in this case was murdering Laci..... but if he had committed another felony somehow, and this felony resulted in the killing of Connor, and she was not killed it would still be ok to charge him with it....
Click to expand...
Yes, however in California it is a felony if you harm/kill another during DUI, even on a first offense. Therefore, if he killed the developing progeny in that crime, it would be murder.
 
Damocles said:
Vehicular Homicide would be the exact charge. The assumption is the person should have decided to ensure they would take other transport and therefore made a direct decision to put others in danger. These laws came into effect mostly because of Federal Highway funding. Like the change from 1.0 to .08...
Click to expand...

MADD.

I just really don't see how it could possibly "deter" crime, being that the person at the time obviously had their functions impaired, and may not even be aware of what was happening. Of course, our drunk driving rate is much worse than other nations, probably because of our vast sprawling neighborhoods.

Most jurisdictions outside have a negligent manslaughter jail term of 3-4 years.




OK... I just looked it up. It's called "vehicular homicide", however, it's a seperate charge from homicide in itself.
 
Last edited:
the laci or connor peterson law was passed in 2004:

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. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[2]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.
Click to expand...

oops forgot this part!!!

Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 34 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[3]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
The point water was to put yourself in the place of the unborn child. Would you choose to be aborted if you were given the choice?

NONE of us would.
Click to expand...
JOB wished he had been killed in his mother's womb when he was going through all of his agony here on earth, if memory of my Bible readings are correct... ? ;)

Care
 
scott peterson charged with 190.2 (a)(3) in regards to connor

Legal Research
California Penal Code Section 190.2
Legal Research Home > California Lawyer > Penal Code > California Penal Code Section 190.2



(a) The penalty for a defendant who is found guilty of murder in the first degree is death or imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole if one or more of the following special circumstances has been found under Section 190.4 to be true:

(1) The murder was intentional and carried out for financial gain.

(2) The defendant was convicted previously of murder in the first or second degree. For the purpose of this paragraph, an offense committed in another jurisdiction, which if committed in California would be punishable as first or second degree murder, shall be deemed murder in the first or second degree.

(3) The defendant, in this proceeding, has been convicted of more than one offense of murder in the first or second degree.
Click to expand...
 
and damo, i was just answering Dillo regarding peterson...

without further research, i don't know what california law is regarding a drunk driver killing a fetus in a car accident. It would make sense that they would be charged with the killing of the fetus..... but i don't know the laws involved, but i amm gonna go research it right now, to find out/

care
 
Care4all said:
and damo, i was just answering Dillo regarding peterson...

without further research, i don't know what california law is regarding a drunk driver killing a fetus in a car accident. It would make sense that they would be charged with the killing of the fetus..... but i don't know the laws involved, but i amm gonna go research it right now, to find out/

care
Click to expand...

It doesn't make any sense as long as we have abortion.
 
However, they wouldn't be charged with the "murder" of the fetus, they'd be charged with the "vehicular homicide" or "manslaughter" of the fetus. If any other action resulted in the death of the fetus the charge would be the equivalent charge for the death of a regular person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top