The logic is that the person who shot her was acting in justified self defense, so the woman charged is the one who caused the child's death by creating the situation in which the other person justifiably defended herself.

It's a little convoluted and probably won't stand up in court.

The person who pulled the trigger was deamed to have acted in self defense and is not being charged. Getting a manslaughter charge when acting in self defense is what shouldn't make sense.

> Getting a manslaughter charge when acting in self defense is what shouldn't make sense.

The instant someone pulls a gun trigger, they assume legal responsibility for the path of the bullet, and everything it does along that path.

If I fire a shot in justified self-defense but miss and kill someone else, I can (and should) be charged with manslaughter. That makes good legal sense, as far as I can tell.

in some states that is just not true.

In some states if you rob a bank and cop shoots at you but misses and hits and kills a bystander, then YOU the robber who did NOT shoot anyone will be charged with manslaughter.

that is sort of what is happening here.

Wow, that strikes me as really unjust and backward.

So if a policeman is willfully negligent and doesn’t keep up his target practice, his own lack of skill could result in someone else being charged with manslaughter. I disagree: If anyone is charged, it should be him—though I do recognize the court would rightly not hold him responsible if a reasonably competent person couldn’t have been expected to do better.

If it worked that way, perhaps people would think twice more often before discharging a firearm - and fewer people would be harmed.

I agree. If she wasn't pregnant and died would that be considered suicide?