you're absolutely right about that. it was a quick emotional response and it was stupid. it sounded like a teenager. i'm sorry.
I seriously hope this is the last story involving murder and anti/pro abortion activists. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/11/michigan.shooting/ (CNN) -- Authorities have charged an Owosso, Michigan, man with two counts of first-degree premeditated murder in the Friday shooting deaths of an anti-abortion activist and another man, a prosecutor's office said. Activist Jim Pouillon was shot and killed Friday while protesting outside Owosso High School. Authorities say the suspect, Harlan James Drake, was offended by anti-abortion material that the activist had displayed across from the school all week. Drake, 33, is accused of shooting anti-abortion activist Jim Pouillon, 63, and Michael Fuoss, 61, who were killed in separate locations Friday morning, the prosecutor's office in Shiawassee County said. Authorities also have charged Drake with a felony firearm count and carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent, the prosecutor's office said. Drake also is suspected of "attempting to locate a third victim without success," the office said. He was arraigned Friday and is being held without bail, the office said. It was not immediately known whether he had an attorney. Pouillon, whose anti-abortion activity was well-known in the area, was protesting across the street from Owosso High School about 7:20 a.m. Friday when he was killed by several shots fired from a passing vehicle, Owosso Police Chief Michael Compeau said. Watch Compeau talk about the incident » Several people witnessed the shooting, and one was able to provide a license number, he said. About an hour later, Owosso police officers found the suspect, Compeau said. "At the time of his arrest, the suspect made statements that he was involved in another homicide in Shiawassee County the same day," he said. Sheriff George Braidwood said a call had come to a 911 dispatch center about 8:17 a.m. saying that an employee at Fuoss Gravel, outside Owosso, had discovered the owner, Michael Fuoss, dead. He had been shot several times, Braidwood said. Authorities believe that Fuoss and the suspect knew each other, Braidwood said. According to Sara Edwards of the county prosecutor's office, authorities do not believe that Drake knew Pouillon. Operation Save America, the anti-abortion group of which Pouillon was a member, said in a written statement that he was "well known for his love of Christ and unborn children." The Owosso school district went into immediate lockdown after the shooting outside of the high school and remained so until the suspect was in custody, Compeau said The high school's administration offered parents the option of picking up their children, he said. All after-school activities were canceled, he added. Owosso, a town of about 15,000 people, is about 25 miles west of Flint, Michigan
very sad. i'm not asking this to give any kind of excuse to the shooter, but why was this person protesting abortions outside of a school? i've seen the pictures that these people like to show during such protests and i'd be upset if my kid had to see those on a daily basis.
Judge allows a voluntary manslaughter defense in killing. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34810725/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts Some fear abortion ruling could spur violence Suspect will be allowed to argue voluntary manslaughter in volatile case updated 3:34 p.m. CT, Mon., Jan. 11, 2010 WICHITA, Kan. - On a balmy Sunday morning, Scott Roeder got up from a pew at Reformation Lutheran Church at the start of services and walked to the foyer, where two ushers were chatting around a table. Wordlessly, he pressed the barrel of a .22-caliber handgun to the forehead of Dr. George Tiller, one of the ushers, and pulled the trigger. As his premeditated, first-degree murder trial begins Wednesday, no one — not even Roeder himself — disputes that he killed one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers. But what had been expected to be an open-and-shut murder trial was upended Friday when a judge decided to let Roeder argue he should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter because he believed the May 31 slaying would save unborn children. Suddenly, the case has taken on a new significance that has galvanized both sides of the nation's abortion debate. Prosecutors on Monday challenged the ruling, arguing that such a defense is not appropriately considered with premeditated first-degree murder when there is no evidence of an imminent attack at the time of the killing, and jury selection was delayed. A hearing was scheduled for Tuesday afternoon to give the defense time to respond. "The State encourages this Court to not be the first to enable a defendant to justify premeditated murder because of an emotionally charged political belief," the prosecution wrote. "Such a ruling has far reaching consequences and would be contrary to Kansas law." More violence against providers? With secret jury selection proceedings stalled, the key questions are now being asked outside the courtroom: Will the judge's decision embolden militant anti-abortion activists and lead to open season on abortion providers? Does the Justice Department plan to file charges against Roeder under draconian federal statutes guaranteeing access to clinics? And what does it all portend for the unfolding case itself and the inevitable legal challenges to the nation's abortion laws? Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., has admitted to reporters and in a court filing that he killed Tiller. The prosecution stands ready with more than 250 prospective witnesses to prove it. News of Sedgwick County Judge Warren Wilbert's decision infuriated Dr. Warren Hern of Boulder, Colo., a longtime friend of Tiller who performs late-term abortions. "This judge has basically announced a death sentence for all of us who help women," he said. "That is the effect of the ruling. This is an outrage." Hern said it's irrelevant that Wilbert won't decide until after the defense presents its evidence whether to allow jurors to actually consider a conviction on the lesser charge. "The damage is done: The judge has agreed to give him a platform," Hern said. "It is an act of incomprehensible stupidity on the part of the judge, but he is carrying out the will of the people of Kansas who are trying to get out of the 19th century." Kansas law defines voluntary manslaughter as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force." A conviction on that charge could bring a prison sentence closer to five years, instead of a life term for first-degree murder. ‘I am flabbergasted’ A man who runs a Web site supporting violence against abortion providers said in the wake of the judge's decision that he has changed his mind about attending Roeder's trial. The Rev. Don Spitz of Chesapeake, Va., said he and other activists from the Army of God plan to observe the court proceedings quietly next week. "I am flabbergasted, but in a good way," Spitz said of the judge's decision. Spitz acknowledged that the possibility of a voluntary manslaughter defense may influence some people who in the past wouldn't kill abortion providers because of the prospect of a sentence of death or life imprisonment. "It may increase the number of people who may be willing to take that risk," he said. The Feminist Majority Foundation also denounced the ruling, saying Wilbert essentially was allowing a justifiable homicide defense. The group, which supports abortion rights, urged the Justice Department to file federal charges under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Decision opens the door Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar declined to comment, citing an ongoing investigation. In Des Moines, Iowa, even militant anti-abortion activist Dave Leach agreed that the decision opens the door to presenting the same evidence as for justifiable homicide. It was Leach who wrote the 104-page legal brief that Roeder signed and submitted to the court in which he admitted killing Tiller. "The closer we come to a court actually addressing these issues, the less danger abortionists are going to be in," Leach said. "The violence started in 1992 when FACE was passed, which made the penalty for sitting at the abortion door ... about the same as for shooting an abortionist and ever since the courts have simply not addressed the issues that it looks like this judge is going to take a step to addressing." As events unfold inside a Wichita courtroom, the Kansas Supreme Court is considering a challenge from four media outlets, including The Associated Press, over the judge's decision to ban reporters from from witnessing jury selection.
so, using their logic, i could go kill anti-abortionists because killing them could save the life of a doctor. it's really too bad these people weren't aborted themselves. would've saved the world a lot of trouble.
I don't know. I don't think the idea is so far-fetched. Obviously, since the doctor wasn't doing anything illegal, then the defense shouldn't actually work and the killer should get convicted of first degree murder. But the idea behind it isn't so crazy. People who are anti-abortion really do believe that an abortion is murder and that having an abortion is akin to killing a human being. I think sometimes pro-choice folks sometimes lose sight of that fact. It explains why there is so much passion and anger about the abortion issue. Wouldn't you be angry, too, if the country allowed any child under six months old to be killed if the parents didn't want to raise it?
The problem with that argument though is that it basically justifies all sorts of acts. Hassan the Ft. Hood shooter could then legitimately use the same defense to say that he was saving the lives of Iraqis and Afghanis by killing the soldiers before they could get be deployed. Radical animal rightists could justify blowing up a slaughterhouse on the basis they are saving the lives of animals who they consider to have just as much a right to life as people.
Note that I said that it shouldn't actually work as a defense. If the victim isn't doing anything illegal, then you can't kill them with premeditation and use their actions as an excuse. I'm just saying that the argument is interesting because it exposes the thought process of some passionately anti-abortion people. Even though it's legal, they think abortion is murder, so of course they would want to do almost anything to stop it.
In this situation though the judge is granting a legitimacy to that argument by allowing it as a defense. While yes its interesting in the abstract but it also has many implications.
I don't know. It sounds like this applies to Roeder. I personally believe the law should be changed if it allows him to get out in five years, but as written above it certainly sounds like it applies to him: Unreasonable? Check. Honest? Remains to be proven, but probably. Belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force? Yup. Doesn't it?
It could be argued that ANY murder includes those bullet points, to some degree. Sounds like a very poorly-written law.
That is a good point but like Finalsbound I agree that seems like a troublesome law. I would also need to consider what is the wording of the law and if this law is frequently invoked in Kansas to see how applicable it is in this case. From the article though it sounds like allowing this defense though is somewhat unusual.
