Abortionist Tiller's Murder in Perspective

[fool]

That would not be imminent either.





No. That would not be imminent either. You can't shoot someone in the mall and claim that they were going to kill you later that day. That would not be sufficient as "self-defense" in any court.




If they are already a hostage, then the threat is imminent whether they were threatened to be killed in 24 hours or not.

The entire known world seems to know the definition, save you and few others that seem to have found their way here? I don't believe your feint at ignorance.

I don't believe that you're sitting hear practicing your arguments for the Prosecution.
True Colors huh.

 

[fool]

Tiller is in a casket, so I would guess the smell would be bad on his side.

But I think you've hit upon a non-sequiter. I am not in favor of abortion just because I do not think you should murder people who are.

Do you think you should be able to murder me because we disagree?

The Hero in this story didn't kill Tiller because he disagreed with him.
He killed Tiller because Tiller had killed 60,000 people and was going to do some more on Monday.
Why don't you go look up "reasonable expectation" Mr. ArmChair lawyer for the Death Culture.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

So if a someone is entering into my house, I'm not in imminent danger?

An abortion clinic is not your house. An abortion clinic is Tiller's private property. Walking to it at best would be public property (assuming he parked outside and used the sidewalk to get there ... which they don't).

Plus the baby has not arrived. You could save the baby through other means besides killing the abortionist, including talking the mother out of the abortion.... that alone dispels the notion of self-defense.

And none of this was at an abortion clinic. It was on a Sunday.

I'm only in imminent danger when he pulls the trigger on the gun? The court system would disagree, as would most reasonable people.

Even if someone was trespassing on your property, which is different than the scenario you listed before, you do not have the right to shoot them necessarily. The courts have been clear that you can't just gun down someone on you property with immunity. You still have to prove you were in danger, or thought you were. And in some states it is still manslaughter.

What do you suppose Tiller's intent was as he walked into his abortion clinic with schedule abortions?

He walked into a church. Do you mean in your hypothetical situation, what do I think he thought? I imagine he "would think" that he was going to make some money killing kids today. That doesn't make it self defense.

Would you call a baby a hostage in this situation?

You are seriously arguing that being a pregnant mother is a hostage situation?
Do you think you can shoot a pregnant mother who is about to light up, sip some wine, or do crack?

Do you really want this to be your argument?

Really? Why don't you cite a legal definition for me.

Good heavens ... you actually need someone to cite one?

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

 

[ApologeticJedi]

The Hero in this story didn't kill Tiller because he disagreed with him.He killed Tiller because Tiller had killed 60,000 people and was going to do some more on Monday.

He may have repented before Monday. He may have been sick Monday. The self-defense argument fails on these simple facts alone.

As for the 60,000 people he had already killed ... that's an argument of vengeance. Yes, Tiller should have been put to death for the vengeance of those he had killed (even if he repented), but not by an individual. Even Tiller deserved the right to a fair and speedy trial.

 

[Johnny]

An abortion clinic is not your house. An abortion clinic is Tiller's private property. Walking to it is public property.

You did not answer my question. Is the danger imminent? Which part about private or public property makes the danger imminent or not imminent? The discussion is about the context of imminent. Courts have ruled that the danger is imminent because the occupant can reasonably fear for his life.

Plus the baby has not arrived.

Patients routinely arrive before the physician, especially in the case of surgical procedures.

You could save the baby through other means besides killing the abortionist, including talking the mother out of the abortion.... that alone dispels the notion of self-defense.

If it's not in self-defense (or defense of one's neighbor), then it doesn't satisfy my logical chain in my first post, and is therefore not applicable.

Even if someone was trespassing on your property, which is different than the scenario you listed before, you do not have the right to shoot them necessarily. The courts have been clear that you can't just gun down someone on you property with immunity.

No, but the moment he enters my house I am afforded castle doctrine (at least in my state). See above.

What do you suppose Tiller's intent was as he walked into his abortion clinic with schedule abortions?

That's irrelevant.

No, it's not. The one legal legal discussion of imminent I could find included reasonable expectation and apparent intent.

Do you suppose there was reasonable expectation Tiller would be performing abortions?

You are seriously arguing that being a pregnant mother is a hostage situation? Do you realize how stupid you sound?

No, I'm not arguing that. I asked you if you believe that.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

The word imminent is not on that page. I asked for a legal definition of imminent.

 

[fool]

He may have repented before Monday. He may have been sick Monday. The self-defense argument fails on these simple facts alone.

As for the 60,000 people he had already killed ... that's an argument of vengeance. Yes, Tiller should have been put to death for the vengeance of those he had killed (even if he repented), but not by an individual. Even Tiller deserved the right to a fair and speedy trial.

I just sugested a mock trial on the Ask Knight thread, you sound like you want to head up the procecution.
How's it feel to be on Tiller's side?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I don't believe that you're sitting hear practicing your arguments for the Prosecution.
True Colors huh.

Which is it; black or white?

First you accuse me of not being enough for abortion that I'll condone cold-blooded murder, then you accuse me of making arguments for a defense of murder.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I just sugested a mock trial on the Ask Knight thread, you sound like you want to head up the procecution.
How's it feel to be on Tiller's side?

I don't know what that is. I get on TOL about one day out of a month. If it is something that requires a lot of my time I'll have to ask lighthouse to stand in my steed. (He already seems over-qualified, in that he knows what self-defense is.)

Besides, don't you think I've already sufficiently exposed your folly. Do you really need me to do it again?

What sort of hypothetical thaumaturgy do you require that you can't make the argument now? You already have Granite and Johnny trying their best to help you - to no avail. Or is the problem that they are making your position look bad? Would you do better on your own?

 

[fool]

Which is it; black or white?

First you accuse me of not being enough for abortion that I'll condone cold-blooded murder, then you accuse me of making arguments for a defense of murder.

You sit here and you use your brain to argue for those that would crucify the guy that stopped Tiller. Why wouldn't you use that brain to make a defense of the guy that saved thousands of people?
You are on the wrong side.
The Hero will get tried, arguments will be made, if I was on that jury he'd do some time for endagering others but he'd get a medal and time off for a job well done on defending the lives of complete strangers.
This has only just begun.

 

[WizardofOz]

Fool, should the murder of abortion doctors be legal? Why or why not?

Let's even pretend they are just about to begin an abortion procedure and the threat to the fetus is imminent.

God has granted everyone the right of self defense to use an escalation of force up to lethal action to protect oneself and one's neighbor from unjust, imminent harm and death.

Any theist who agrees with this assertion, feel free to chime in as well to the above hypothetical.

 

[yankeedoodled]

Granite's posting:
God has granted everyone the right of self defense to use an escalation of force up to lethal action to protect oneself and one's neighbor from unjust, imminent harm and death. Of course abortionists have unjustly slaughtered countless innocent children. Yet here at Bob Enyart Live we do not condone the murder of Tiller, but we are thankful that he will never kill another child.

Uh huh.

This is a classic loves me/loves me not situation: we have the right to defend the innocent, buuuuuuuuuuuuuut you shouldn't kill abortionists. We're sorry Tiller was murdered buuuuuuuuuuuuuut we're glad he'll never perform another abortion.

Any kind of equivocation when it comes to this situation is unacceptable. Providing a straight answer shouldn't be so difficult.

yankeedoodled:
Straight enough, as long as the savage butchery of the innocent is done out of sight, out of mind. No problem. Notice how it only became a serious concern when the massmurderer came to justice ? Killing a murderer became intolerable, didn't it. You are what you defend. Was America wrong to stop the mass murderer Adolf Hitler or Saddam ? Same level of discussion was used in Saddam's time. The butchery of thousands of innnocent people didn't even become a concern, but defending Saddam's life became a real concern to the wicked, or should i say depraved, or should i say alternate thinkers of the left.

 

[fool]

I don't know what that is. I get on TOL about one day out of a month. If it is something that requires a lot of my time I'll have to ask lighthouse to stand in my steed. (He already seems over-qualified, in that he knows what self-defense is.)

I've got limited time as well, but this is way more important than a couple of people. There would be teams, heck coalitions just like there will be at the real trial.

Besides, don't you think I've already sufficiently exposed your folly. Do you really need me to do it again?

Correction oh Arrogant One that fights on the side of Tiller, you will need to do it once before you can do it again.

What sort of hypothetical thaumaturgy do you require that you can't make the argument now?

Well I need a staff of para-legals to go look up "thaumaturgy" for one.

You already have Granite and Johnny trying their best to help you -

Johnny and Granite are some good people I'm not so sure about you.

to no avail.

More arrogance, must be nice to be perfect in your world, problem is we can see you in there.

Or is the problem that they are making your position look bad?

Do you find it at all interesting who's taking what position here?
You're a Christian defending an abortionist against an Athiest who is defending the guy that stopped him.
Get a bunch of air fresheners.

Would you do better on your own?

Would it matter? would more minds help? Do you have an ego problem as well as an arrogence problem?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

You did not answer my question. Is the danger imminent?

No.

Which part about private or public property makes the danger imminent or not imminent?

You said "kill him as he is walking into an abortion clinic". Then you changed it to walking into your house. Are you seriously saying you don't know the difference?

Yes, you will be given more lee-way if someone is trespassing than if you are gunning them down on public property. Trespassing can help to argue that there is a threat against you.

You knew this, which is why you were dishonest and changed the scenario from walking into an abortion clinic to walking into your house.

Patients routinely arrive before the physician, especially in the case of surgical procedures.

That happens even in abortion cases. And sometimes the patient comes out after having a change of heart.

If it's not in self-defense (or defense of one's neighbor), then it doesn't satisfy my logical chain in my first post, and is therefore not applicable.

It is the hypothetical that YOU came up with. If it is not applicable, then why did YOU bring it up?

No, but the moment he enters my house I am afforded castle doctrine (at least in my state). See above.

sure. Although there are stipulations even around that. For instance, if you've invited them in, you can't then shoot them if they don't leave by the count of 1.

No, I'm not arguing that. I asked you if you believe that.

No. I do not believe that a pregnant mother is holding her child hostage in the literal. I can see a metaphorical charge, but obviously she is not holding a child hostage.

The word imminent is not on that page. I asked for a legal definition of imminent.

Good grief. I gave you the definition of self-defense.
Why are you playing semantics?


http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3470.html

. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name of third party>) was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being touched unlawfully];

...

The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger;
...

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of violence to.

Both this, and the previous link is sufficient to dispel the notion that future harm can be considered imminent in any way.

 

[fool]

Fool, should the murder of abortion doctors be legal? Why or why not?

I have a valid self defence argument.
I have imminent threat and reasonable expectation of harm nailed down so far that you can't find the head of the nail with a metal detector no matter what Yoda and the guy that thinks he's a dictionary understand.

Let's even pretend they are just about to begin an abortion procedure and the threat to the fetus is imminent.

Is someone about to be killed or not?

Any theist who agrees with this assertion, feel free to chime in as well to the above hypothetical.

So far the Theist seem to be on Tiller's side.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I've got limited time as well, but this is way more important than a couple of people. There would be teams, heck coalitions just like there will be at the real trial.

Sounds great. Judging by the gems that have been put forth so far, I think Lighthouse could probably do it by himself.

Do you find it at all interesting who's taking what position here?
You're a Christian defending an abortionist against an Athiest who is defending the guy that stopped him.
Get a bunch of air fresheners.

I know it's weird isn't it. I am fighting against cold-blooded murder both of the unborn, and then I turn around and fight against the cold-blooded murder of Tiller. That's too consistent for comfort.

Meanwhile, the atheists (some of whom I know are pro-choice) defend the murder of the murderer because they are hoping to find some inconsistency in the position of the pro-lifer. In doing so, the atheists are having to defend the indefensible.

Would it matter? would more minds help? Do you have an ego problem as well as an arrogence problem?

I didn't think it was arrogance to think you guys were sounding silly. Maybe it was. I'll let others decide.

As for my comment, I just know sometimes it is easier when people with really bad arguments don't take my side. I thought maybe you would think you would do better without someone suggesting a pregnant mother was a hostage-taker, or other such gems. I don't think I've actually heard your arguments. Maybe they will at last be rational, and not some slew of hypotheticals hoping for something remotely sane.

I did like your "smell bad" argument with Tiller. I thought that showed promise if I may "decompose" your statements a bit.

 

[fool]

No.

Both this, and the previous link is sufficient to dispel the notion that future harm can be considered imminent in any way.

You're on the wrong side and you're an idiot, which is good.
How bout exhibit A of the defence is the list of sixty thousand babies killed by Tiller read one at a time? Do you think that anyone on the jury is not going to agree that babies were going to be killed on Monday?
And why are you on the wrong side again?

 

[WizardofOz]

I have a valid self defence argument.
I have imminent threat and reasonable expectation of harm nailed down so far that you can't find the head of the nail with a metal detector no matter what Yoda and the guy that thinks he's a dictionary understand.

Is someone about to be killed or not?

So far the Theist seem to be on Tiller's side.

You know Fool, I have been thinking about this since I asked you. Now, Roeder killed Tiller, but as far as we know no fetus Roeder was related to was killed by him. But, this raises an interesting question.

If a woman was pregnant and was about to get an abortion, and that child's father did everything he could to prevent her, he may actually have a self-defense argument if he harmed the doctor about to abort his child.:think:

I do not at all agree with Roeder because it was vigilantism and not direct defense since Tiller was not about to kill a fetus, but if Tiller were killed directly prior to a procedure, by an individual with direct relation to the about to be killed fetus, then I think there would be a legitimate defense.

It would probably end in a manslaughter verdict since a fetus is not legally a person......yet.

I disagree with your Roeder defense because I do not agree that the harm was imminent despite the fact that he would abort again the next day. Imminent danger has legal precedent in the justice system. I don't think the Tiller case would qualify from a legal standpoint.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

How bout exhibit A of the defence is the list of sixty thousand babies killed by Tiller read one at a time?

As an emotional argument - yes. He deserved death - no doubt about it.

Now you just have to defend vengeance by vigilantes and you are home free. Good luck.

 

[fool]

Sounds great. Judging by the gems that have been put forth so far, I think Lighthouse could probably do it by himself.

We wouldn't want to take Lighthouse away from his very important work explaining to everyone that Einstien was an idiot about the whole "gravity" thing.

I know it's weird isn't it.

When it's weird you should step back and say "whoa, that's weird"

I am fighting against cold-blooded murder both of the unborn, and then I turn around and fight against the cold-blooded murder of Tiller. That's too consistent for comfort.

Did Tiller have a self defence argument against any of the babies he killed? No? Did the guy who stopped him have one? Yes.
That's consistency.

Meanwhile, the atheists (some of whom I know are pro-choice) defend the murder of the murderer because they are hoping to find some inconsistency in the position of the pro-lifer.

Jesus suposedly sacraficed his life to save everyone, Roeder sacraficed himself to save a few thousand, I'm sure Roeder would have saved everyone if he could have but he wasen't all perfect and what not.

In doing so, the atheists are having to defend the indefensible.

Right, throw stones down on the pro-life Atheist, he's such a rare thing he's a freak that can't survive so kill him the way Tiller killed people that were different.

I didn't think it was arrogance to think you guys were sounding silly.

No that was you.

Maybe it was.

Maybe now?

I'll let others decide.

They will

As for my comment, I just know sometimes it is easier when people with really bad arguments don't take my side. I thought maybe you would think you would do better without someone suggesting a pregnant mother was a hostage-taker, or other such gems. I don't think I've actually heard your arguments. Maybe they will at last be rational, and not some slew of hypotheticals hoping for something remotely sane.

We're all looking for something remotely sane and a couple of loose examples have been spotted a couple of times around here (according to rumor).

I did like your "smell bad" argument with Tiller. I thought that showed promise if I may "decompose" your statements a bit.

Send in the worms, take it easy one the big words though.

 

[fool]

You know Fool, I have been thinking about this since I asked you. Now, Roeder killed Tiller, but as far as we know no fetus Roeder was related to was killed by him. But, this raises an interesting question.

A simple question really

If a woman was pregnant and was about to get an abortion, and that child's father did everything he could to prevent her, he may actually have a self-defense argument if he harmed the doctor about to abort his child.:think:

Of course he would, Tiller specialized in late term abortions, where the baby would have survived outside the womb. But because he can kill him before the babies head leaves the mother's body he stops there and sucks the brains out and colapses the skull. How can you not have a defence argument against a guy that's going to deliver a baby but stop to kill it first?

The entire human race is "related".

It would probably end in a manslaughter verdict since a fetus is not legally a person......yet.

Why is he not legally a person when I can clearly identify him thru DNA as an individual phenotype of the genus Homo and the species Sapian and beyond that we can see that he's my son and my wifes son and my father's grandson and my father in laws grandson and the nephew of a bunch of other people.
There's a debate about "what's that"?
It's not a "what" it's a "who" and we know who he or she is thru very simple scientific analysis.