Abortion as grounds to 'Justifable Homicide'.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers

A phrase from my old old teacher in Newtownforbes, County Longford came back to me when I read this (looking for verifcation on the article btw).. I am totally 'Gobsmacked' by the stupidity of this.

[Trieste]

I'm so tired of this crap. Clearly, if you don't have the political heft to outright criminalize a behavior, you take away the money and you threaten the lives of the people who carry it out. 'Cause that's, you know, ethical.

You don't see those of us who are anti-execution setting up sniper rifles outside of penitentiaries to gun down the personnel who perform legal executions. Jesus.

I'm so ridiculously tired of debating abortion, too. It's depressing.

[Callie Del Noire]

Agreed. I just find it a bit scary that they could decriminalize murder so casually. And I can't seem to find anyhting verifying that is what is being passed.

[Shjade]

I just don't understand the train of thought people who would advocate the killing of abortion providers follow to reach that point.

Abortion is murder - okay. I don't agree with you, but fine, I'll accept that for the sake of argument.
Murder is sinful - clearly.
People doing sinful things should be stopped from doing those sinful things - sounds reasonable.
Killing people stops them from doing bad things - let's stop right there. How is killing people any less sinful than killing unborn people? How is this an improvement?

I dunno, it just seems hypocritical to me.

[Oniya]

I actually watched the trial of the guy who shot Tiller.  While I'm with you on the hypocrisy of it all, I can at least provide the 'glimpse inside the head' of the person who would do that.

An abortion provider sees numerous patients in a given day.  As a result, the doctor is committing multiple murders on a daily basis (as these vigilantes view it).  The defendant justified his actions by saying that his one sin was outweighed by the multiple sins that the doctor had committed - and would continue to commit.  There was even a suggestion that the shooting in a church as opposed to at the clinic, (where there would be an 'immediate' fear for the unborn, invoking the 'defense of others' clause of self-defense) was that the defendant knew that Dr. Tiller had appointments scheduled for Monday (a reasonable assumption, as Dr. Tiller was the only provider in Wichita), and therefore those lives were in imminent danger.

[Trieste]

I wonder what's next? I mean, if SD does this, do they realize they are opening the door to ignoring the voters on other issues, too? What about gun rights? What if I have an ex boyfriend that I believe is going to take a gun that he bought and kill me with it? Does that give me the right to shoot the gun dealer?

If I think that an HMO rep is going to deny my coverage for chemo and essentially sentence me to a slow, painful death, can I kill him? Is that justifiable? Of course not.

Not to mention that according to the article, abortion bans in the state were not only defeated, but they were defeated by a 12-point margin. That's not a slim majority, that's a solid "NO" from the taxpayers.

[Callie Del Noire]

Agree or disagree with abortion, you have to agree that this is opening a VERY dangerous precedent for murder. You could literally spin ANY defense for justifiable homicide using something like this as a precedent.

[Trieste]

According to the article updates, the guy claims that the abortion doctor thing is a loophole that he didn't intend and they're now thinking of amending the bill to provide an exception for legal procedures.

You know, it makes me understand the rhetoric that some of these politicians use. I mean, some days all I want to do is write a letter to my congressman letting him know I'll take a grapefruit spoon to the trachea of anyone who tries to deny me a) birth control, b) proper GYN care, c) condoms, or d) abortions. It's none of their business. -_-

Edit: Er, spoon. Not spook, spoon. >.>

[Callie Del Noire]

According to the article updates, the guy claims that the abortion doctor thing is a loophole that he didn't intend and they're now thinking of amending the bill to provide an exception for legal procedures.

You know, it makes me understand the rhetoric that some of these politicians use. I mean, some days all I want to do is write a letter to my congressman letting him know I'll take a grapefruit spook to the trachea of anyone who tries to deny me a) birth control, b) proper GYN care, c) condoms, or d) abortions. It's none of their business. -_-

Want a list of addresses? :D Just kidding. Though I won't lie when I see some hypocrites on the tube that I don't think it would be interesting see some folks jumped with a spork. :-D.

[Oniya]

Edit: Er, spoon. Not spook, spoon. >.>

Wouldn't that be the kind that has the prongs at the tip in addition to the serrated bits on the edges?

[Trieste]

Once I noticed the typo, I had a mental picture of picking up a random spy (dark coat, dark suit, dark glasses, dark hair) and swinging him around at people...

[Callie Del Noire]

As interesting as the image is that Treiste mentioned. (I keep flashing on an old Beavis and Butthead getting slammed on the sidewalk by their ankles), I have to ask again.

Has anyone found somewhere else that could verify this is an actual new item or something the site has spun.

[Oniya]

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1539&context=wmlr  This looks like a possible source, (page 21 of the PDF) but it looks over 10 years old.  There might be more further in, but that is the first reference to South Dakota and laws involving harm to fetus as a crime.

This comes from the Washington Post - looks like an opinion piece, though.
This comes from Reuters, and here's one from CBS.

[Callie Del Noire]

Thank you Oniya.. you're always sharper with your google-fu than I. :D

[Oniya]

I went for the number of the bill and then hit the News stories.  The W&M thing came off a search for 'harm to fetus', and may have been off-track now that I've had a chance to let it percolate.

[Neophyte]

But it is an update to the state law. Killing a doctor according to the Country may be a different story

[Jude]

I'm so tired of this crap. Clearly, if you don't have the political heft to outright criminalize a behavior, you take away the money and you threaten the lives of the people who carry it out. 'Cause that's, you know, ethical.

You don't see those of us who are anti-execution setting up sniper rifles outside of penitentiaries to gun down the personnel who perform legal executions. Jesus.

I'm so ridiculously tired of debating abortion, too. It's depressing.

Threatening the lives of people who do it is 10000x worse, I think, than even attempting to take it away.  This really just shows the fundamental incivility and instability of many in the pro-life movement.  Whether this passes or not, it encourages violence.

[mystictiger]

I think that this is just a case of bad drafting. A Scottish court (the only jurisdiction I'm familiar with) would interpret the proposed drafting in the following terms.

Homicide is justifiable in certain circumstances. One such situation is self defence. Self defence includes a situation in which the life of a woman or unborn child is at risk.

Presumably SD law doesn't define legal abortion as some form of assault or attack. If it did, then each and evert abortion provider would be charged with assault.

Rather, the above legislation would be used in those circumstances in which a pregnant woman is attacked.

Granted, the Scots courts are under an obligation to interpret law in such a manner as to be consistent with other law.

[Zakharra]

I just don't understand the train of thought people who would advocate the killing of abortion providers follow to reach that point.

Abortion is murder - okay. I don't agree with you, but fine, I'll accept that for the sake of argument.
Murder is sinful - clearly.
People doing sinful things should be stopped from doing those sinful things - sounds reasonable.
Killing people stops them from doing bad things - let's stop right there. How is killing people any less sinful than killing unborn people? How is this an improvement?

I dunno, it just seems hypocritical to me.

As far as I know, abortion is not considered murder. It is legal.  Anti-abortion advocates might consider it murder, but legally? It isn't.

[Oniya]

As far as I know, abortion is not considered murder. It is legal.  Anti-abortion advocates might consider it murder, but legally? It isn't.

Very true, but one of the things that is considered with self-defense and defense-of-others claims is the state of mind of the defendant.  If someone draws a 'look-alike' fake gun and points it at my kid, and I honestly believe it's a real gun, and have reason to believe that my child is in danger, I have grounds to pursue a 'defense-of-others' defense if I end up using deadly force.

I'm not saying that a jury would necessarily buy it, but my defense lawyer could put it out there.

[Zakharra]

Very true, but one of the things that is considered with self-defense and defense-of-others claims is the state of mind of the defendant.  If someone draws a 'look-alike' fake gun and points it at my kid, and I honestly believe it's a real gun, and have reason to believe that my child is in danger, I have grounds to pursue a 'defense-of-others' defense if I end up using deadly force.

I'm not saying that a jury would necessarily buy it, but my defense lawyer could put it out there.

I'd think that was a different type of situation there. If you believe that is a real gun (it looks real, poor lighting or other factors), you have a legitimate reason to believe it is a real threat and deal with it appropriately.  If I was close enough, I'd put a sword through the guy's chest (I keep sharp pointy things at my computer desk). There is a reasonable cause for a lethal defence.

Abortion however IS legal. The anti-abortion people might disagree with that, but it is a legal action and they have no legal recourse to stop it. Killng the providers is murder in all senses of the word.

[Shjade]

I actually watched the trial of the guy who shot Tiller.  While I'm with you on the hypocrisy of it all, I can at least provide the 'glimpse inside the head' of the person who would do that.

An abortion provider sees numerous patients in a given day.  As a result, the doctor is committing multiple murders on a daily basis (as these vigilantes view it).  The defendant justified his actions by saying that his one sin was outweighed by the multiple sins that the doctor had committed - and would continue to commit.  There was even a suggestion that the shooting in a church as opposed to at the clinic, (where there would be an 'immediate' fear for the unborn, invoking the 'defense of others' clause of self-defense) was that the defendant knew that Dr. Tiller had appointments scheduled for Monday (a reasonable assumption, as Dr. Tiller was the only provider in Wichita), and therefore those lives were in imminent danger.

Doesn't wash. How many people are eligible and willing to provide abortions exist in the U.S. alone? How many more are training/will train to hold such a position at a later date? It isn't just one killed to save some undefined number of future lives, it's many killed as a trade for many other lives, and those future lives are, themselves, not beyond question with regard to whether they are more "sinful" left alive or dead. After all, if you protect an unborn child from being "murdered" through abortion...and that child then grows up to run an abortion clinic...well, won't you look like an ass then? Does it become an "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it" justification?

Doesn't wash.

[Oniya]

Like I said, I agree with you there.  I'm only saying that this is what is in their heads, and therefore, they think they have a leg to stand on - even though to an outsider, that leg is wooden and afflicted with a bad case of termites.

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay.. for the sake of consideration let's look at this in a 'reasonable' way.

Most cases of Justifiable Homicide are cases of split second moments such as the 'he was holding a gun on 'x'' or 'I though he was going to stab him/her/them'.

Quick, small points of time with little time for over analysis of the situation.

Follow the presented logic of the proposed law, it is POTENTIALLY feasible to write off the murder of Dr. George Tiller.

He had demonstrated that he did late term abortions, and would continue to do so despite efforts on others to stop him. He had been shot in 1993 by Shelley Shannon, and had rebuilt/repaired his facility after it had been firebombed in 1986. So it is logical to assume that he would continue to do them.

Still the thought that someone can follow the laws of the land, and be killed for obeying them and their murderer get off with justifiable homicide seems a bit.. hinky.

I think the law needs to be reviewed and revised. I'm still out on if it was an intentional gaff or a slip of language that slipped in during the writing of the law.

[mystictiger]

I think Oniya's approach was interesting. Unfortunately for Mr Roeder, it was either an incapable defence or one that is incompetently lead. I've only been able to read summaries of the case rather than a proper case report.

The problem with what you might call anticipatory self defence is that it has to stem from urgency and necessity. It has to be the last possible resort. Therefore shooting the guy on the Sunday is not the last possible resort. Shooting him when he's got the forceps into your wife and is about to do the D and C, after having strapped the woman down and drugged her against her objections... well, that's more likely.