Man Charged Under Little-Used Murder One Unborn

"The charge 'unborn murder one' isn't often used in Nebraska, but an Omaha man is in jail waiting to face a judge for the first time on the charge on Tuesday. Delayno Shackleford is accused of attacking a woman who was eight months pregnant. Hours later, she delivered a stillborn child. An autopsy on the child showed that the cause of death was blunt-force trauma to the head."

http://www.ketv.com/news/7971501/detail.html?subid=22100461&qs=1;bp=t

Have to wonder what the purpose is behind the bill. Still, I have no problem at all with this charge.

n/t

It's almost as if they care more about needing an excuse to challenge RvW than punishing the criminal.

Nah, that can't be it.

it seems.

but there is a very good chance that the baby would have been born alive had it not been for the attack. Sounds like a reasonable charge to me.

the death of the baby was a direct result of the attack. the woman certainly did not have a choice in the matter.

Why would a woman WAIT to get to the hospital and traditionally give birth (vice an immediate evaluation and C Section) after being beaten?

Nope, there's way way more to this story than what's being revealed - especially the part where she has another child by the accused attacker.

Who saw the beating? This is too weird and it's IMO reckless for these prosecutors to charge him with Murder of the Unborn right out of the gate (initial investigation).

IF and that is IF they choose to charge him - with much more supporting evidence, it would be actions that result in the death of a viable fetus not that fundy turn <gasp> unborn.

They should charge him with whatever they can for the attack on the woman, but without knowing more about the case that could mean only a charge of assault. It does sound like it might be difficult to prove intent in the killing of the child (unborn, fetus, whatever), but I imagine having that charge puts the prosecutor in a stronger position regarding plea bargaining.

Not sure what you mean by there's more to the story than is being revealed. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

it's clear to me that the wife or girlfriend is a repeat victim of beatings, since there was another time when he was charged w. assault/battery on this same woman, who is the mother of another of his children

unfortunately even today too often a victim of domestic abuse is too quick to forgive even repeated attacks

it goes back years but i have personal knowledge of a wifebeater who beat his wife in the stomach w. the deliberate intent of making her miscarry, no longer remember if she actually did or if she just said eff it and got the abortion, but it does happen, a few years later the wife got sick of the shit, ran away, the husband hunted her down and tried to kill her, he got two years PROBATION on an attempted murder charge of his wife

so the prosecutors may be thinking, judges and juries are unsympathetic toward girlfriends and wives and don't take them as seriously as similar assaults on a stranger

only way to get this creep off the street, esp. w/out support of the adult victim, may be to use this law concerning attack on the fetus

prosecutors work with what they can sometimes, sigh it's an imperfect world and too often domestic abuse victims are uncooperative

georgiadem69 -- i think it would be not too hard to prove intent, since the adults are in relationship, it is not like this dude beat up some stranger and had no idea that she was pregnant with his own child

have to prove intent to kill the fetus. Intent is always one of the most difficult elements to prove. Frankly, they would have had more succes in any case like this with a manslaughter charge. Maybe prosecutor has good evidence of intent. Doesn't sound like the woman will testify against him.

I don't, but the article sometimes refers to it as fetal homicide and sometimes as "murder of the unborn" so there seems to be a potential language issue here.

I know the law essentially puts a fetus at the same level of protection as the rest of us "born" folks (which I find questionable because it looks like an attempt to criminalize abortion by the so-called back door method), but I'm curious about the specifics of the law's wording.

that the law is almost definitely a backdoor attack on choice. However, even though the intent behind the bill is questionable I don't have a problem with the result in this instance. Sounds to me like this asshole should be charged with killing the fetus, in addition to charges of assault/attempted murder on the woman.

Language - Nebraska: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is murder in the first degree, second degree, or manslaughter. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-391 to § 28-394. (2002)

National Right to Life lists all states that have a similar law at: http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html

because if it wasn't the language would refer to the fetus instead of the "unborn child" and wouldn't have to put the phrase in quotation marks. This is (of course) purely a side issue here, but one that I think we need to watch for anyway.

I also think that in this case you're right about this being a means to strengthen the case against him. I've found that many states have laws that require prosecutors to pursue assault charges against the beater, even if the beaten tries to drop charges because of the "forgiveness" issue. For some strange reason, some folks think they actually DESERVE that sort of treatement or that it will just stop if they stop provoking the beater. It just DOESN'T happen. They ALWAYS find some other excuse.

I wonder how many of the people in these relationships come out of abusive homes. I'd bet it's a VERY high percentage...

at the 'new' supreme court. 'look yer honors, the courts have already said a fetus is a PERSON'

it's cases like this that strengthen their hand.

Damn, I get so angry about this it's hard to be peaceful. They AREN'T PRO-LIFE. They're PRO-BIRTH. After that, it's "yer on yer own, and don't let us catch you breakin' the law, 'er we'll kill ya' where ya' stand!"

I think questions still remain. If this is a stalking horse law, why did California of all places enact one using the word fetus decades ago? Shit, Idaho even goes so far as to include embryos.

My personal feeling is that the fetus's standing in the eyes of the law is should be entirely predicated by the mother. If she wishes to carry the child to term then the law should protect that child. (note: I do not wish to get into a semantics battle but I consider a fetus a child when a mother wishes to have it, to call it a fetus at that point seems just wrong)

and is going to name the dead baby after his mother before they bury her?


Jacked up...

know of similar but ultimately the wife did escape

sometimes women just do not know their options or that there is a better way to live

Actually , the fundies seem to have little use for women who are beaten or killed. But the mans "seed" is all important. Women are just possessions to them. After all , women are to submit to their husbands , as the husbands are head of the household.So killing the "seed" would be all important.

"Hours later, she delivered a stillborn child." That doesn't mean she waited.

"especially the part where she has another child by the accused attacker."

So, women who have had a child by a man aren't EVER subsequently beaten by the same man ever again?

I don't understand how or WHY you would make such inflammatory accusations and unfounded extrapolations. Right wing talk radio personalities do this so well, lets let them continue to have the market cornered.

"This is too weird and it's IMO reckless for these prosecutors to charge him with Murder of the Unborn right out of the gate (initial investigation)."

Maybe, just maybe, the prosecutors know more details about the case than what we could gather from a 5 paragraph news story. They can always change the charges (I know, I know, but it establishes a bias, yada, yada).

"IF and that is IF they choose to charge him - with much more supporting evidence, it would be actions that result in the death of a viable fetus not that fundy turn <gasp> unborn."

Pardon me, I'm no fundy, but if MY wife was 8 months pregnant with OUR child, and was beaten to a pulp which resulted in the death of our BABY (too politically incorrect for you??), WE would want the person tried for murder.

We don't know for a fact that it was THIS individual who beat her and/or who caused this trauma to a once viable fetus.

I'm speaking from a ice cold OBSERVING status ... when you put a loved one )your wife) in this woman's position - all the emotion associated with such an perspective may place one's viewpoint less than objective.

We're both wrong to assume. I do wonder why it was hours later that she gave still birth? It just doesn't make sense to me ... but what the hell do I know from my Nursing School rotation in "Labor and Delivery."

We both need more facts before we can draw any valid conclusions. :hi:

where he would beat a shit out of her, but she would still support him. As she apparently still does, even after he killed the baby/fetus.

roe, and eventually get it overturned. another way of getting a fetus declared a "person". that should be pretty obvious to everyone.

The article refers to a law. I have to wonder if anyone else in this thread has even bothered to look it up.

State of Nebraska Statutes

Section 28-391
Murder of an unborn child in the first degree; penalty.

(1) A person commits murder of an unborn child in the first degree if he or she in committing an act or engaging in conduct that causes the death of an unborn child, intends, with deliberate and premeditated malice, to kill the unborn child or the mother of the unborn child with knowledge of the pregnancy.

(2) Murder of an unborn child in the first degree is a Class IA felony.

Source:
Laws 2002, LB 824, § 5
~ Revised Statutes Cumulative Supplement 2004

http://srvwww.unicam.state.ne.us/Statutes2005.html

The intent behind the law appears to be a backdoor attack on Roe. They probably should have charged the guy with manslaughter.

"A person commits manslaughter of an unborn child if he or she (a) kills an unborn child without malice upon a sudden quarrel with any person or (b) causes the death of an unborn child unintentionally while in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any criminal assault, any sexual assault, arson, robbery, kidnapping, intentional child abuse, hijacking of any public or private means of transportation, or burglary."

...because quite a few states have had these laws for decades.

I'm not saying I know the intent, but it seems suspicious. Regardless, I support the charge in this case.

Isn't it Nebraska that has the nutcase attorney general?

Suppose someone pulls out a gun, points it at another person, and fires.

Circumstances clearly indicate an intent to kill. But the shooter is a bad shot, and an innocent bystander takes the bullet and dies as a result.

What charge would you support? Manslaughter or murder?

(Hint: Here in California it would be murder.)

Now, what if the intent is not clear and the shooter claims he was only trying to scare the person he pointed the gun at?

In California the charge would still be murder.

But if you look at this law you have to prove intent to kill the child to gain a murder conviction. Manslaughter only requires the death of the child during an assault. Murder in California is "the unlawful killing . . . with malice aforethought. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature."

The California law doesn't provide that you have to intend to kill the victim, just that you intend to kill.

...since 1978(on edit: I was wrong its even older). In fact it was used to prosecute Scott Peterson.

"another way of getting a fetus declared a "person"."

When the mother CHOOSES to carry the child to term, that is what the law should consider them.

some evidence that some would incorrectly use to topple Roe, its automatically a bad law?

If our child was killed in my wifes womb at 8 months after my wife was beaten by a pulp by some creep, we would want the creep tried for murder. I'd personally fly him to GITMO if I could. I'm pretty sure Roe/Wade has NO effect on our opinion about this.

First degree murder. (On edit, I just read the article fully.)

I don't have a problem with the charge either.

If the mother had gone to the hospital before the man attacked her and delivered the baby, the baby would be alive. If she was just a few months along, I don't know if I would support it.