Oklahoma Acting to Protect Unborn

[guido911]

I guess to some this is more idiocy. I mean really, allowing a mom-to-be to kill an attacker in defense of the unborn children she is carrying?

http://www.koco.com/cnn-news/19082604/detail.html

[TURobY]

I guess to some this is more idiocy. I mean really, allowing a mom-to-be to kill an attacker in defense of the unborn children she is carrying?

http://www.koco.com/cnn-news/19082604/detail.html

No, not idiocy, because there is legitimate concern that the law does not adequately cover this situation. What is idiocy is when lawmakers spend time outlawing non-issues (like eye-tattooing) and pressuring OU (like with the Richard Dawkings lecture) when there are more pressing issues in this state. Healthcare, education, transportation, just to name a few.

[TeeDub]

If she was in "fear for her life" couldn't she already kill the attacker under existing laws?

What ever happened to common sense judges and juries and not needing to legislate every possibility?


I think we need to bring back and explain to people the concept of jury nullification.

[Elaine]

It does seem redundant.

[buckeye]

I assume it's possible to cause a miscarriage or otherwise harm the kid without killing the mother.

[TeeDub]

Would losing your unborn child not constitute "great bodily harm?"

I wish lawmakers would quit making stuff illegal-er. 


OUJI-CR 8-46

DEFENSE OF SELF-DEFENSE -

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

A person is justified in using deadly force in self-defense if that person reasonably believed that use of deadly force was necessary to protect himself/herself from imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Self-defense is a defense although the danger to life or personal security may not have been real, if a reasonable person, in the circumstances and from the viewpoint of the defendant, would reasonably have believed that he/she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

[Nik]

I'm ok with this since there is already a precedent that goes the other way. Yes it does seem common sense, but apparently some judges/juries may not see it that way.

[cannon_fodder]

What precedent that goes the other way?  I am not aware of any, educate me.

It is currently legal to defend yourself against eminent bodily harm up to and including deadly force.

This law makes it legal for a pregnant woman to defend herself and her fetus from eminent bodily harm up to and including deadly force.

Next week, a law allowing old people to defend themselves from eminent bodily harm up to and including deadly force.

It's redundant.  I don't really have a problem with it.  Just like I wouldn't have a problem with them passing  law saying I have the right to do anything else I already have a right to do.  If judges/juries were too stupid to see this before - they won't see it now.  Call me when this is actually used in an instance that the prior law would not effectuate the same result.