Posted on 07/18/2005 7:08:10 PM PDT by donprocto
Surprised that I would say that?
Don't be.
While I agree with every other reasonable person that Rudolph was wrong to exact vengeance against a society which, in his words, is "...no longer the protector of the innocents", I also agree with Rudolph's statement. We do not protect the innocent, and his targets (they are not victims, as victims, by definition, are innocent) are hypocrites when they call him a monster and a coward, as Emily Lyons, a nurse wounded by his bomb, said at Rudolph's sentencing. I can think of nothing more cowardly, monstrous, cold blooded, and hateful than the dismembering of an infant.
Particularly ironic was clinic director Diane Derzis's statement, who, speaking of Rudolph, said, "It gives me great delight to know you are going to spend the rest of your life sitting in an 8-by-12 box.". Ironic because fully one half of her patients end up broken and bloody atop a gauze pad of considerably smaller dimensions.
If I shot an intruder who was about to kill my children, I would be justified and I would not be guilty of murder. If my neighbor shot the intruder, he (the neighbor) would be a hero, and the intruder will have gotten his just rewards.
If my neighbor went on to shoot the mailman, does that change the fact that the intruder got what he deserved?
Brave words from a infanticide-enabling absolute nothing who would have better served humanity by being caught right on the blast. As would have Lyons.
No, and it doesn't change the fact that your neighbor's a murderer and little better than the thug who was trying to break into your home.
Rudolph was more than wrong, he was a terrorist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.