I think we can all agree that killing abortion doctors is always a tragedy. I personally wish there were fewer abortion doctor killings and that every abortion doctor was a planned, wanted abortion doctor. However, we should not judge those who have a different conviction, so that’s why I support the right to choose…it’s a choice no abortion doctor killer wants to make, but feels driven to out of desperation. When will we take abortion doctor killings out of the back alley and ensure a safe, orderly environment in those cases where such a tragic choice may be felt to be necessary?
Perhaps if people were less judgmental about killing abortion doctors, and stopped demonizing abortion doctor killers, they would feel less marginalized and seek the help they need in the community. We’re all human beings here, and no one has the right to judge…
In the state of Texas there are laws that if correctly applied would show that this was a lawful defense of a third person.
PC S9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(I) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
Two very interesting and entertaining posts.
The idea that someone can murder an abortionist and call it “defense of other” is absurd, unless–and this would be a stretch–they did so while the “doctor” was performing the procedure. Though with the mother’s consent to the procedure, that would be a hard sell. This is akin to justifying the murder of a crank dealer; there is no “reasonable,” “immediate” threat.
Escapists such as “no one” above need to stop reaching for justification after-the-fact, and accept that the despicable “right to abortion” is established law in this country. Tilting at windmills accompishes nothing. While somnambulent self-described “conservatives” perennially re-elect crafty pols who only have the intention of running on the pro-life position, those same politicians, once elected, decry their impotence in the face of “judicial tyranny.” Abortion is indeed a booming industry–for both sides of the question.
The truth, should anyone care to admit it, is that Congress itself could cure so many judicial ills by simply legislating issues out of the federal courts’ purview that are not original jurisdiction issues as defined by the Constitution. Abortion is one such vulnerable ill. Ron Paul, perennial whipping boy to the GOP, has been trying to pursue this actual remedy for years now, with small support–and ample derision–from the “Party for Life.”
so brian are you saying you would vote “guilty” if you were on this guy’s jury? I’d consider it my duty to nullify.
That’s a hard call. It was murder. Would you have nullified Jack Ruby’s murder rap? (Let’s operate under the assumption that the Warren Commission didn’t obfuscate–I know that’s a stretch) Although I have a strong tendency towards nullification in pretty much any circumstance, I’d have to say that the guy is guilty of murder.
That his victim was, too, doesn’t absolve Tiller’s guilt. I seem to recall Someone saying it was His job to revenge. But I could be wrong.
As an aside, I find it interesting–disturbing, but interesting–that there are so many self-described “pro-lifers” who don’t even blink at the idea of sending federal shock troops overseas to wreak havoc on indigenous cultures everywhere, killing mothers with their children (unborn or no), etc., so long as it’s in the name of the all-powerful State; who bombastically defend the “right” of the state to take a criminal’s life (despite recent overwhelming evidence suggesting that a high percentage of guilty verdicts have been nothing more than politically-motivated hackery); who are then shocked–SHOCKED!–when the same State sanctions the taking of unborn infants’ lives. Does that not strike you as at best unprincipled? It’s certainly not “pro-life;” at best, it’s anti-abortion. (By the way, that’s simply an observation, not judgement)
The fact that this “doctor’s” cold-blooded murder is being lauded–no, celebrated, and in a house of worship, no less!–among Christians is a fact that I find deeply disturbing. [I feel I need to interject that I didn't take your post as such, Tom, but as an ironic illustration of an intellectually untenable position, that of the pro-abortion crowd] I mean, how is such blood-lust reflective of Christ?
It’s not; it’s obscene.
NB: I didn’t say I would vote “guilty.” I simply said he is guilty.
I’m not as sure as you are. I would not convict the guy of murder. I’m happy Tiller is dead, I’m frankly shocked it’s taken this long; at some point you start wondering if the American people are still awake.