Posted on 06/19/2007 12:49:10 PM PDT by SmithL
Buffalo, N.Y. (AP) -- Federal prosecutors sought two life sentences Tuesday for a militant abortion opponent already serving 25 years to life for murdering a doctor who performed abortions.
James Kopp's sentencing in U.S. District Court will bring to a close a case that began nearly nine years ago with the sniper-style slaying of Dr. Barnett Slepian in the kitchen of his suburban Amherst home.
Kopp was convicted in 2003 on a state charge of second-degree murder for Slepian's death and sentenced to prison. In January, a federal jury convicted him on related charges that he violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act by killing an abortion provider.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathleen Mehltretter said she would ask for consecutive life sentences on that count and a count of using a firearm — in this case a scope-equipped military assault rifle.
"Dr. Slepian was gunned down in front of two of his children and his wife. A third child tried to help stem the flow of blood until paramedics arrived," Mehltretter wrote in her sentencing memo. "For the survivors, the horror of the gun shot and seeing a loved one killed will remain with them forever."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Well, we certainly know that Kopp is not pro-life, don’t we.
Kopp just put himself on the same level: murderer.
Kopp just put himself on the same level: murderer.
_______________—
I’ll regret this shortly, but Slepian was working in accordance with the laws of these United States of America. Kopp was not. Big difference.
If i recall, Kopp said he only intended to wound the so-called ‘doctor’
I know, it’s not like that makes a big diff... the guy is still dead.
I know, it’s not like that makes a big diff... the guy is still dead.
Yeah, gunshot wounds tend to bleed. A lot.
“I’ll regret this shortly, but Slepian was working in accordance with the laws of these United States of America. Kopp was not. Big difference.”
Yes, and we all know how fair and righteous the law is, don’t we?
I guess you would prefer, say, the lawlessness of Baghdad? What exactly is your point?
In fact, in makes no difference, because one would actually have to find Kopp credible to believe that bs. I don’t, simply on the grounds that one does not use a scope equipped assault rifle to “wound” someone. For that, he could have simply knee capped him like the red brigade did in europe, was that in the 70’s or 80’s?
watching too much TV dude!
watching too much TV dude!
__________
You can always turn it off, but I appreciate the confession.
I meant you...
kneecaping?
“...one does not use a scope equipped assault rifle to “wound” someone...”
Where do you get your info?
He said that only because his justification defense was suppressed.
My point? Slepian was within the law. The law was wrong. Not only was Slepian being protected by a “wrong” law but Kopp was finally convicted by it.
Hypothetical situation time: You happen to be a witness as a man is beating a child to death. You have the means to stop him - a loaded gun but the locality in which all this is happening has a strict law against carrying loaded guns. It is obvious that the only way to effectively keep him from killing the child is to kill him first. What do you do? You could just walk away and call 911 as the child dies, thus keeping the authorities from finding out about your gun. Or you could shoot the man and risk prosecution yourself.
I’m not sure I’d to do what Kopp did but the government is lucky I wasn’t on his jury.
I knew exactly what you meant.
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/isn/2003-q2/0245.html
Read on towards the bottom of the article for a reference to the Red Brigade and the knee-capping they did. Surprised you missed all of that when it was happening.
As far as needing to get information about the purpose of a scope equipped rifle being pointed at someone, nah, not necessary, they intend to kill. Spin it all you want.
Will Kopp’s sentence be reduced for all the lives he helped save ?
OK. You’re honest.
There are apparently situations in which you find it acceptable to murder. So which other of God’s commandments have similar “out” clauses, in your view?
Then all wartime killing is wrong as well and all soldiers are potential murderers.
How can self-defense (of the unborn) be morally wrong?
Not self-defense, just defense. The unborn aren't in a state to defend themselves yet.
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.