Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Literally all of this is wrong, but it's a massive threadjack so I'll just respond to the following:
|
No, Will. It's not "literally all wrong". That
is what happened. Paul Morrison only brought one witness to the stand and ignored the rest of the evidence compiled by Phil Kline. Going by the one "witness" the prosecution brought to the stand, the jury had no choice by to find Tiller innocent, as no other evidence was produced (
Link).
Quote:
|
During testimony, both Dr. Tiller and Dr. Neuhaus, the only witness called by prosecutors, denied that there was anything improper about their financial relationship. Dr. Neuhaus testified that she misspoke during a 2006 deposition when she called herself a “full-time consultant” for Dr. Tiller.
|
And since when have threadjacks ever stopped you in the past?
Quote:
|
You can't act in self-defense of another individual or potential individual. You can only act in self-defense of yourself.
|
This is patently untrue. Self-defense laws in the U.S. allow you to defend not only your own physical well-being, but the physical well-being others, as well. To illustrate this, imagine if you have a child, and someone tries to harm that child. You can legally defend that child in order to prevent harm. Or, imagine you're walking down the street and you witness a rape in progress. You can legally run to the woman's aid in order to prevent her harm. I'm not so sure why you believe that self-defense laws only pertain to yourself, as if that were the case, then you would be prevented from helping anyone who's physical well-being was being endangered by the actions of another.
...And there's nothing "potential" about a ZEF, much less a viable one.
Quote:
|
His cowardly, ignorant attack was intended to be a strike at existing, legal abortions everywhere. His intent was to stop all abortions, so he murdered a prominent women's health professional in cold blood in order to make the larger change of stopping all abortions. It's the very definition of terrorism.
|
If Roeder "wanted to stop all abortions everywhere" he wouldn't have merely focused on one specific doctor for years. I brought this up prior, but you just glossed over it, so I'll try again. The reason there was a disproportionate amount of attention paid to Dr. Tiller wasn't merely because he performed abortions or even late-term abortions, but because of the numerous stories surrounding his practices (i.e., performing abortions on women for trivial reasons, incorrect procedures when carrying out the abortion, failing to adhere to Kansas law, etc.). Tiller, himself, wasn't the poster child of abortions. Remember, there are two other abortion clinics to the same effect as Tiller's was in the U.S., and they didn't, and don't, receive anywhere near the publicity that Tiller's clinic did. What Tiller was and forever will be is the poster child for controversy and a hell of a lot of that controversy was self-induced based of shifty practices.
Your assertion of terrorism, aimed at stopping abortions everywhere, which is in itself fairly dumb, is wrong. Before you claim terrorism, you have to prove that Roeder's actions were politically motivated or aimed at stopping abortions everywhere. But given the fact that he has stated otherwise, and the fact that he has been, for lack of a better word, obsessed with a specific doctor, Tiller, for years (And this has also been stated by his close friends) then you have nothing to fall back on except baseless conjecture and empty, emotional rhetoric. Screaming about how much it's terrorism isn't going to make it so.
Quote:
|
Your point about it's rarity meaning that it's not terrorism is also flawed. How often do people fly planes into buildings? It's only happened once, therefore it's not terrorism? I think it may be time for you to reconsider your definition of terrorism.
|
*le sigh*
Flying a plane into a building is the act carried out by a specific agent, in this case Al Queda. Al Queda is not considered a terrorist organization because a couple of members hijacked a plane and flew it into a building, but because they use violence as a means by which to influence U.S. international policy (Among others). Violence does not automatically equate to terrorism. I have yet to see any murder of an abortion doctor or a clinic bombed in order to influence laws on abortion. These acts are carried out with the direct intent to kill, not to influence. And unless you can prove that certain agents are carrying out certain acts in order to influence policy, there is no terrorism. It's just violence aimed at a certain group of persons.
...But, hey, pejoratives are fun so continue to use them.
Quote:
|
As this was an act of terrorism and it was successful in closing Tiller's clinic, the terrorist has won.
|
It's...
Quote:
|
It's unacceptable that acts such as these are successful; it's unacceptable that terrorism works.
|
...not...
Quote:
|
The best way to combat terrorism is to now allow it to change us.
|
...terrorism.
Quote:
|
Just as the proper response to 9/11 would have been continuing to have a free and fair society, to continue in everything we were doing on 9/10, the proper response to the act of terrorism against Dr. Tiller would be keeping this clinic for women in need open.
|
Don't you ever get tired of flinging around the "T" word? I know I would if I were you. Oh well. I'll say this again: It's not terrorism. And you can throw around the word all day and night, and it still won't make it terrorism.
---------- Post added at 02:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
By definition, self-defense requires that the individual be threatened. Roeder was not threatened. So nice strawman you built there.
|
A.) Self-defense laws in the U.S. allow you to defend not only your own physical well-being, but the physical well-being others, as well, if need be.
B.) Hard to be a strawman when you're quoting someone else, isn't it? I think so. But, seeing as how you quoted
PART OF A SENTENCE, I could see where the confusion would come in.
Quote:
|
Too bad all those ferns died millions of years ago to create the coal that's firing the power plant to give my computer the electricity to be able to read it, though. I'm sure that they would have appreciated Roeder (or maybe you) being fired at a high enough velocity to deflect the asteroid that killed them, though. Which is a statement that makes exactly as much sense as your post.
|
So, you dismiss my post as being a strawman yet create one of your own? For shame
. How does that work?
Quote:
There were 4 murders in 16 years and none in the 25 years prior to that. And there were no Oklahoma City's or 9/11's before those events happened either.
Will was right - you need to reconsider what you consider terrorism. It has nothing to do with frequency and everything to do with the act itself.
|
Terrorism has nothing to do with the act itself, and the intent/expected outcome of the act.