Anti-Abortion Activist Shot And Killed

[Thomas Paine]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...FaQBAD9AL8HLO1

OWOSSO, Mich. — A 33-year-old man fatally shot an anti-abortion activist Friday outside a high school as horrified parents and students watched, authorities said.

So, what are your thoughts?

[BeNice]

Not enough information. We don't know what the motive was.

[odun]

it is only terrorism if an abortion doctor is shot.

[Thomas Paine]

Originally Posted by BeNice

Not enough information. We don't know what the motive was.

Seems fairly clear cut already. I would be highly surprised to learn that the motive was something other then his protesting.

"I would speculate it was ... intended," Compeau said. "He was out protesting right across the street from the high school ... and there (were) multiple people around there and that person was targeted."

[Atticus]

If the motive was to silence a protester, then it is exactly the same dynamic as when the MD who performs abortions was killed a few months back. I'm pro-choice, but if a pro-life person was specifically targeted, then that's deplorable and I would hope that the more vocal members of the pro-choice community, those who publicly and shrilly decried the killing of the MD, would condemn this act.

[SilentLoner]

I notice this happened only hours ago so there could be more information (both the shooter and victim knew each other).

I hate to say this but if it was, anger has been building for quite some time. Its been years of one sided murders (both attempted and successful), harassment and property damage. I am not trying to justify this in any way - but the way things are going things build up on both sides. It has to stop.

Wouldn't it be great if we could all disagree without shooting others?

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

So, what are your thoughts?

1. I'm thinking the gun-grabbers will use this as an excuse to enact even more restrictive gun control laws.

2. Please don't use guns when you kill. Stabbing & blunt force trauma work just as well.

3. First time I've ever heard of a pro-lifer being killed for their views, though a motive has yet to be established, so it will be very interesting to see if this is actually the reason.

[odun]

how many of your guns have been grabbed lately?

obama has kissed the butts of nra members.

hell, now yall can bring your guns to national parks. have a family gun day! thanks to the gun grabber obama!

[Thomas Paine]

Originally Posted by SilentLoner

Wouldn't it be great if we could all disagree without shooting others?

Yes, I agree. But as for the rest of your post, are you trying to suggest that this was somehow caused by the violence of radicals on the other side?

I don't believe in killing for any reason, even as a punishment for killing, but when pro-life radicals use violence, they are (from their point of view) doing it to defend babies they view as being helpless and to prevent something they see as mass murder.

When someone is violent towards a peaceful demonstrator of any type, they can't even claim that. All they can claim is that they did it to silence the demonstrator's freedom of speech. Almost a crime against The Constitution and it seems should be far more likely to be considered an act of terrorism.

I imagine this is why you don't see violence towards peaceful pro-life activists very often. They are not doing anything that the other side sees as murder.

Hopefully I was able to stay as neutral as possible there and still make my point. And hopefully you can say that the guy didn't deserve to die, no matter what violent people on the other side have done.

[SilentLoner]

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

Yes, I agree. But as for the rest of your post, are you trying to suggest that this was somehow caused by the violence of radicals on the other side?

When someone is violent towards a peaceful demonstrator of any type, they can't even claim that. All they can claim is that they did it to silence the demonstrator's freedom of speech. Almost a crime against The Constitution and it seems should be far more likely to be considered an act of terrorism.

I imagine this is why you don't see violence towards peaceful pro-life activists very often. They are not doing anything that the other side sees as murder.

Hopefully I was able to stay as neutral as possible there and still make my point. And hopefully you can say that the guy didn't deserve to die, no matter what violent people on the other side have done.

And after I frankly said that I was in no way justifying this. I don't see the need to respond further as I have made that clear.

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

I don't believe in killing for any reason, even as a punishment for killing, but when pro-life radicals use violence, they are (from their point of view) doing it to defend babies they view as being helpless and to prevent something they see as mass murder.

I certainly hope that wasn't an attempt at justification there.

[ivankaramazov]

I'm sure a guy who gets his kicks standing outside clinics and screaming at teenagers about God's wrath could have gotten shot for any variety of reasons.

[Thomas Paine]

Originally Posted by SilentLoner

And after I frankly said that I was in no way justifying this. I don't see the need to respond further as I have made that clear.

#1) Just because you state that you aren't justifying it, doesn't mean you aren't.
#2) I never accused you of justifying it. I simply asked you to clarify it because it sounds like you were trying to blame it on the other side as a way to justify it. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and a chance to explain. You won't answer. Now it definitely sounds like you are trying to justify it.
#3) I also said that hopefully you can say the guy didn't deserve to die, so you could clarify what you meant further. You won't answer.

Originally Posted by SilentLoner

I certainly hope that wasn't an attempt at justification there.

Nope. I was trying to make a point from a neutral viewpoint. Like I said, I don't believe in killing for any reason, even as punishment for killing. I am trying to explain the difference between the two types of killing and why one is more heinous then the other. The former, if vigilante justice were legal, would be more akin to the type of killing done by soldiers or police officers when they kill under orders to defend someone who (in their view) is helpless against their attacker. The latter, again if vigilante justice were legal, would be more akin to a soldier or police officer killing someone because they don't like what they are saying.

[Atticus]

But Silent loner, when you said that if it was a targeted killing of a pro life protester, it was subsequent to anger building and years of one sided murders. If that's not a justification, even though you hated to say it, then what is it? Break your sentence down and ascribe some other meaning to it.

[SilentLoner]

Originally Posted by Atticus

But Silent loner, when you said that if it was a targeted killing of a pro life protester, it was subsequent to anger building and years of one sided murders. If that's not a justification, even though you hated to say it, then what is it? Break your sentence down and ascribe some other meaning to it.

Okay, I see what you mean. I meant to state a reason that could have built up to and prompted the shooting. I meant to be objective with the statement. Sorry if it seems otherwise.

[pyramidsong]

Beyond all partisanship or justification, my feeling is that anyone who shoots another person for having a differing view is a nutcase regardless of what that view may be. For what it's worth I'm pro-choice and would most probably have violently disliked the guy BUT I believe in democracy and with that comes freedom of speech and the right to demonstrate. This is no more justifiable than when it happens to the other side.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by odun

how many of your guns have been grabbed lately?

None, and we will fight vigilantly to keep it that way.

[UltraShy]

Originally Posted by odun

hell, now yall can bring your guns to national parks. have a family gun day! thanks to the gun grabber obama!

Do you seriously think that a law banning guns in national parks would have stopped criminals? Criminals seem quite skilled at ignoring every other gun law on the books, so what's another law to them? If you're a felon who's not supposed to have a gun period and you're carrying a stolen gun that's illegal as well and you're carrying it concealed without a valid concealed carry permit which you can't get since you're a felon you've broken at least three serious gun laws already. And what would a felon be packing a stolen gun for? Perhaps to break even more laws? Such as to use that gun in a crime like raping your wife as you and your son are forced to watch and then shooting all three of you dead to avoid witnesses. And you'd be lucky enough to have no way to fight back since he has a gun and you don't and the guy with the gun tends to win.

The people, such as NRA members, who contacted their elected officials demanding that they be allowed to legally carry guns in national parks clearly are not criminals. Criminals carry illegal guns and do whatever they want so it wouldn't matter to them what the law says.

I'm one of those NRA members and I seem to recall firing off a bunch of e-mails to my elected officials on this issue earlier this year.

[bcarroll]

(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.

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.

[WinterDave]

If the killer had been a pro-lifer, this story would have been on the cover of magazines, the front page of newspapers, and leading the evening news.You would have had politicians and special interest groups denouncing the violence etc....

[WineKitty]

Originally Posted by WinterDave

If the killer had been a pro-lifer, this story would have been on the cover of magazines, the front page of newspapers, and leading the evening news.You would have had politicians and special interest groups denouncing the violence etc....

Violence of this nature of any kind should be denounced.