TexasCHLforum.com

WICHITA, Kan. – Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation's few providers of late-term abortions despite decades of protests and attacks, was shot and killed Sunday in a church where he was serving as an usher.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090531/ap_ ... r_shooting

Gosh, this is a tough one to digest. I had no love for this guy (I'm pro-life), but vigilantism surely won't help the case for Life or 2A, not to mention this was just cold-blooded murder, which is just as terrible as what critics accuse Tiller of doing. And it's just awful this happened at a church. Anyway, to bring this discussion to a more gun-related focus, I noticed a very familiar sounding statement elsewhere in the article:

The doctor's violent death was the latest in a string of shootings and bombings over two decades directed against abortion clinics, doctors and staff.

How does the AP define a "string?" Apparently from this related article, 10 cases over a 16 year period. Substitute "schools" or "parking lot disputes" for "abortion clinics" and you have the same moral of the story they're always cramming down our throats: guns are only used by evildoers. I just hope that this, combined with the recent DHS Right-Wing Extremism report, doesn't result in some major damage to RKBA.

I saw this yesterday & you are right Clark. This is no help to the Right to Life Cause or the 2A cause.

Good post.

It's awfully hypocritical of this murderer to say it is bad to take a babies life but 'ok' to take the Doctor's life. Doesn't help his cause...

pbwalker wrote:It's awfully hypocritical of this murderer to say it is bad to take a babies life but 'ok' to take the Doctor's life. Doesn't help his cause...

So are you against the death penalty as well? In NO way am I saying what this guy did was right, and I agree this only hurts 2A causes and the pro-life movement.

But ignoring the vigilantism and arrogance of being judge/jury/executioner, here in Texas we put people to death for killing others. Is it any less hypocritical because the law condones it?

I do find it interesting that this is identified as a "string" of violence. Is there a group that organized and planned these acts? Were they all perpetrated by the same person, or members of a group? Kind of hard to call it a 'string' if the perpetrators aren't connected in any way...

I certainly had no use for this guy and have probably less for former Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius. That said, please be reminded that all, every single one, of their abortions were not unilateral acts. There was at least one other person involved in each procedure.

For the sake of our RKBA rights, I wish he hadn't been shot.

I'm having a real difficult time with this one. Yeah, murdering this "doctor" was wrong and I wouldn't have done this, but . . .

This man was a dispicable person and because of his relationship with the former governor, now sectretary of HHS, he was allowed to continue erforming late and sometimes very late term abortions. By making significant donations to Sebelius' campaign and her own nut job views he bought legal protection in the form of a governor that blocked all attempts to require parental notification for minors to get abortions and to prohibit late term abortions.

I think it was also Sebelius that blocked KS for years from having CHL laws until the state senate was able to pass it with enough votes to not require a signature from the governor or override a veto. After getting my CHL, before going to visit my parents several years ago, I was looking to see if KS allowed me to carry in their state. I ended up contacting the state troopers office by e-mail with my question. A reply stated that at that time they did not allow civilians to carry a concealed weapon, but as soon as they could get a real governor they would correct that.

I understand my facts may be wrong, so please don't hesitate to correct me, but this is how I remember them.

Many people here have different opinions on morally and ethically Right and Wrong, so attempting to debate or argue those is pointless at best, inflammatory at worst.

From what I know, everything this 'Doctor' did was legal, Morally/Ethically Right or Wrong (see above) aside.
Politicians are 'bought' every day. Do I personally think this is right? No, but this is hardly an isolated case.

Murdering him was Illegal.
This person who shot him is a Murderer, and I'm pretty sure it was premeditated.
By Law, he should fry. (Again, Right/Wrong, see above.)

If you believe that certain laws are Right or Wrong, you have the option to speak with your vote, and I encourage everyone to properly do so.
However, laws currently standing, The guy is a Murderer, and should be treated as such.


Really trying to walk the line on neutral here
Also.. I believe that EVERYONE can agree that "Two Wrongs don't make a Right" universally applies

I agree dicion. I'm just having a hard time feeling any kind of sympathy for the doctor. The 16y kid killed in the OK pharmacy probably didn't deserve to die, but I don't know if I can say the same for this doctor. Legally protected by an immoral law or not. That's why I'm having such a difficult time with this one.

IMHO

pbwalker wrote:It's awfully hypocritical of this murderer to say it is bad to take a babies life but 'ok' to take the Doctor's life. Doesn't help his cause...

well, said...

I, for one, have no moral objections to what this doctor did for a living. I think it's shameful that he had to be killed just because someone disagreed with what he did.

I don't believe that this was a "revenge" or "vigilante" killing, but rather an act of using deadly force to prevent what the assailant saw as the commission of a crime against an innocent third person. This doctor was killing babies (apparently late term babies at that) and wasn't stopping. Therefore his killer brought deadly force to prevent the continued commission of this crime.

We don't know what the killer was thinking, but that's my best guess. Texas has "defense to prosecution" laws in cases where deadly force was used to prevent the commission of crimes. If Kansas has such statutes, then if I was this guy's attorney, that's the angle I would be looking at.

^ While I agree ArmedFarmer has a good point, and while I agree that an unborn child is in fact a person, the law will try to say that defense of a 3rd person does not apply in this case because an unborn baby is not a person.

The Jews were declared to not be "persons" in the legal sense during Nazi Germany, and the perpetrators of the holocaust claimed that what they did was legal. The courts eventually found them guilty, even though what they were doing was "legal" at the time.

This is the route that the killer's defense would have to go, in order to have a chance to at least lessen the sentence on his client.

(note: this was meant to be a direct response to 74novaman's post above, but something went screwy -- anyway, here it is)

Abortion, Murder, Death Penalty ...
Three distinctly different ways another person can be killed. While it is interesting and sometimes useful to compare our opinions on the validity of all three, we must keep in mind that each comes with clear and distinct differences.

• Abortion - obviously the dead in this case is given no choice - but there are, obviously, other considerations that we as a society have debated for quite some time. Wont' get into that in this forum. But just making the obvious point that the dead don't choose this fate.
• Murder - truly evil, the dead is given no choice whatsoever and the murderer takes life/death choice fully into his/her own hands
• Death Penalty - the dead in this case had a choice, and chose to commit a crime knowing (usually) that consequences of this crime could be punishment by death. This is why I don't agree that the Death Penalty can be compared equally to Abortion or Murder. It is too different, with a different set of "qualifying factors".

TheArmedFarmer wrote:I don't believe that this was a "revenge" or "vigilante" killing, but rather an act of using deadly force to prevent what the assailant saw as the commission of a crime against an innocent third person. This doctor was killing babies (apparently late term babies at that) and wasn't stopping. Therefore his killer brought deadly force to prevent the continued commission of this crime.

This would be an interesting take for the defense. The problem I see with it is, don't you have to basically catch someone in the act for defense of a 3rd person to be defense to prosecution? So unless he burst into the operating room during, I don't see this one flying even if the courts did view abortion as murder.

Just because I know someone is planning on hurting somoene, I have no legal justification to walk up to them in the street and shoot them down unless they're actually hurting me/someone else at that moment. Correct?