• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trial to Begin in Abortion-Doctor Killing

Redress said:
To the best of my knowledge, it is not disputed that he shot a man in a church. Nothing there presumes a guilty conviction, only the facts of the case as presented.
Click to expand...

:prof You could shoot someone and not commit any crime.
 
Jerry said:
Didn't you hear? Any act which frightens someone ever so slightly is now terrorism :roll:
Click to expand...

terrorism definition
ter·ror·ism (ter′ər iz′əm)
noun

  1. the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy
  2. the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way
Click to expand...
As defined in the dictionary, terrorism is using force or threats to intimidate. What this doctor did was to murder someone, as an act of intimidation against other abortion doctors.

Again, you are being two faced, Jerry, applying the legal definition to the killer, and refusing to apply it to the doctor.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
If that were true then he would be charged with terrorism.

But he's not.

The panty-bomber wasn't even charged with terrorism.
Click to expand...

I said that it could be argued that it was terrorism, the burden of proof of whether it was intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population is likely why it is not being prosecuted as such, that is a hard burden of proof to establish, just as the undie bomber case. Murder is open and shut case, why complicate further and needlessly try for a harder terrorism conviction, although there is room under the definition to potentially argue it as such?

I am merely posting the correct legal definition to show that it is plausible to consider his acts an act of terrorism under this definition.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
:prof You could shoot someone and not commit any crime.
Click to expand...

Yes, my father did, it was a hunting accident. In this case, it was not a hunting accident. In this case, is any one disputing he intentionally shot a man?
 
Dav said:
I hope you realize you're generalizing here. While there are many people who applaud what the guy did (jamesrage, for example), I think that the consensus even among conservatives would be that the rule of law must be upheld, and that what this guy did was premeditated murder, which usually earns one either a life in prison or the death penalty.
Click to expand...

I disagree. People like him don't pop out of the blue and are isolated from any ideology. I'm sure there are many prominent 'mainstreamers' within conservatism who applaud what he did but they simply won't voice it. When you have so many people within an ideology who have the stances of being pro-gun, pro-life and pro-death penalty then one can only see this guy as a product of that.

The right wing in this country has millions of people just like jamesrage. People who are not only xenophobic but homophobic and religious to the point where they see what this man did as a good thing. However unlike jamesrage very few are willing to voice their opinions out. I applaud jamesrage for having the consistency to say he supports what the killer did.
 
danarhea said:
terrorism definition
ter·ror·ism (ter′ər iz′əm)
noun

  1. the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy
  2. the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way
As defined in the dictionary, terrorism is using force or threats to intimidate. What this doctor did was to murder someone, as an act of intimidation against other abortion doctors.

Again, you are being two faced, Jerry, applying the legal definition to the killer, and refusing to apply it to the doctor.
Click to expand...
At least you're using Webster now...at least that looks like Webster...but the actual legal code is still more authoritative for the technical definition than the common vernacular.
 
Jerry said:
danarhea said:
terrorism definition
ter·ror·ism (ter′ər iz′əm)
noun

  1. the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy
  2. the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way
Click to expand...
At least you're using Webster now...at least that looks like Webster...but the actual legal code is still more authoritative for the technical definition than the common vernacular.
Click to expand...

Then don't be such a hypocrite. According to the legal code, the man is a murderer. You CAN'T have it both ways.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Yes, my father did, it was a hunting accident. In this case, it was not a hunting accident. In this case, is any one disputing he intentionally shot a man?
Click to expand...

:prof you can intentionally shoot a man and not commit any crime.
 
Jerry said:
danarhea said:
terrorism definition
ter·ror·ism (ter′ər iz′əm)
noun

  1. the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy
  2. the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way

At least you're using Webster now...at least that looks like Webster...but the actual legal code is still more authoritative for the technical definition than the common vernacular.
Click to expand...

U.S. Code definition of domestic terrorism :

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113B/2331

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.
Click to expand...

Yes. He is a terrorist. The intention behind his act is clear. You don't assassinate one abortion provider because you dislike him. You kill him to send a message. The message? Change policy or he'll keep going.
Click to expand...
 
danarhea said:
Then don't be such a hypocrite. According to the legal code, the man is a murderer. You CAN'T have it both ways.
Click to expand...

The question is not rather he's a murderer, but rather he's a terrorist.

You claimed in the OP that he is a terrorist, and that simply is not so.
 
Jerry said:
:prof you can intentionally shoot a man and not commit any crime.
Click to expand...

Legally, as in you think the law will stipulate that he killed a mass murderer? Here is where I stick the final nail into your coffin in this debate. Under the law, the doctor was not a mass murderer. That makes the killer's intentional shooting of a man, who is NOT legally defined as a mass murderer, a murder, and a criminal act.

Thanks for playing.
 
Hatuey said:
U.S. Code definition of domestic terrorism :

18 U.S.C. § 2331 : US Code - Section 2331: Definitions



Yes. He is a terrorist. The intention behind his act is clear. You don't assassinate one abortion provider because you dislike him. You kill him to send a message. The message? Change policy or he'll keep going.
Click to expand...

He doesn't meet the criteria: "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;"

As I said before, he was not trying to influence policy, he was trying to stop one person from continuing a behavior. Right or wrong that doesn't make him a terrorist.
 
I can see it now. Tomorrow night I will log on. This thread will be 80 pages long... mostly filled with posts of people arguing over semantics, rather than the issue.

Just another DP thread.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Hatuey said:
He doesn't meet the criteria: "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;"

As I said before, he was not trying to influence policy, he was trying to stop one person from continuing a behavior. Right or wrong that doesn't make him a terrorist.
Click to expand...

So he wasn't trying to intimidate a civilian population by killing a person who provides that same population with a service? You're trying too hard Jerry.
Click to expand...
 
Hatuey said:
U.S. Code definition of domestic terrorism :

18 U.S.C. § 2331 : US Code - Section 2331: Definitions



Yes. He is a terrorist. The intention behind his act is clear. You don't assassinate one abortion provider because you dislike him. You kill him to send a message. The message? Change policy or he'll keep going.
Click to expand...

No, the intent behind his act is not clear. It's totally plausible that his motive was to murder a man he hated. Just because his motive has political undertones doesn't mean he was a terrorist.
 
Ethereal said:
No, the intention behind his act is not clear. It's totally plausible that his motive was to murder a man he hated. Just because his motive has political undertones doesn't mean he was a terrorist.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. The only people who this doesn't seem clear to is people who are pro-life. I for one am not surprised.
 
danarhea said:
Legally, as in you think the law will stipulate that he killed a mass murderer? Here is where I stick the final nail into your coffin in this debate. Under the law, the doctor was not a mass murderer. That makes the killer's intentional shooting of a man, who is NOT legally defined as a mass murderer, a murder, and a criminal act.

Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

The legality of many of those late-term abortions are still in question, and will now come to Scott Roeder's difence.

Had you actually read the article you might have seen:

danarhea said:
In a pretrial hearing Friday, Kansas Judge Warren Wilbert said he might allow the defense to present evidence that Mr. Roeder acted in defense of others -- in this case, fetuses -- whom he believed to be under imminent threat. The judge said he would make that call as the trial proceeded, on a witness-by-witness basis.

<snip>

Under Kansas law, voluntarily manslaughter applies when an individual uses deadly force in the unreasonable but genuine belief that he was compelled to do so.
Click to expand...

Voluntarily manslaughter = not a murderer.
 
Jerry said:
The question is not rather he's a murderer, but rather he's a terrorist.

You claimed in the OP that he is a terrorist, and that simply is not so.
Click to expand...

1) A shooting, for the purpose of intimidation, to change policy, IS terrorism. It's the dictionary definition.

2) You use the legal definition to define him as NOT a terrorist.

3) But the law says the doctor committed no crime.

4) However, you do not apply the law there, as you did in saying that the killer is not a terrorist. You call the doctor a mass murderer, even though the law says he is not.

Your argument is patently dishonest.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
1) A shooting, for the purpose of intimidation, to change policy, IS terrorism. It's the dictionary definition.
Click to expand...

You're just assuming that was his intent. What evidence do you have to support this implication?
 
Jerry said:
:prof you can intentionally shoot a man and not commit any crime.
Click to expand...

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. I know, it's fun to play stupid games, but in this case, he intentionally shot an innocent(in the eyes of the law) man. No one is arguing this to my knowledge. If this is the case, he is, and most likely will be found to be, guilty of a crime. Little retard semantic games won't change this.
 
Ethereal said:
You're just assuming that was his intent. What evidence do you have to support this implication?
Click to expand...

If we go by the legal definition, then Jerry must maintain that the doctor was innocent, and was murdered in cold blood. He can't have it both ways.
 
Jerry said:
The question is not rather he's a murderer, but rather he's a terrorist.

You claimed in the OP that he is a terrorist, and that simply is not so.
Click to expand...

Depends on how you define terrorist. He is not being charged with terrorism, but he does meet the definition of terrorist I use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom