Replies

"You seem to be making an argument that there are extra-ordinary measures which can dismiss our responsibility to accept the rule of law and work within it."

I'm doing no such thing. I have repeatedly stated that I do NOT condone vigilantism. I am merely taking issue with the disingenuous notion that reasonable legal measures weren't exhausted and that is is somehow a failure in representative democracy that allowed Tiller to practice. It wasn't. The pro-life side did all the right things to work within the law and accomplished what they needed to. The failure is in the corruption of those charged to enforce the law. Pro lifers did their part through legal means. Tiller was allowed to violate the law with help of a corrupt Gov and AG. I can understand how the vigilante lost patience when Tiller was allowed to violate the law with impunity.

" I’m just trying to find out what those boundaries are in general. For example: Does having to elect two new officials always count or does the power of the office have something to do with it? (e.g. It’s an extraordinary measure to have to remove a Governor but not a dogcatcher. That sort of thing.)" Again, there is no general rule. We're discussing a specific case. Since a dogcatcher has no impact on whether or not a law is enforced, I don't see what your point is. It is EXTRAORDINARY to have to demand that a governor allow the laws to be enforced, rather than thwart them for a political donor. (And this is coming from someone who lives in ILLINOIS!)

"I’m curious as to whether you believe individuals, in general, should get to decide when extraordinary measures justify abandoning the rule of law or if there are specific and objective guidelines or boundaries we must follow. Do I just get to wake up one day and say “This is intolerable!” and start shooting? If not, why not?" I don't think anyone is ever legally justified in vigilante killing. Do I have sympathy for people who do so in certain cases, even if I believe they have to pay for their crimes? You bet! I would have sympathy if someone in Ron Goldman's family shot OJ. In the case of Tiller's killer, yes, there is a threshold at which I have sympathy for his killer and, when Tiller is allowed to literally get away with murder --not just based on the pro-life characterization but according to the LAW -- I have sympathy for the man who is willing to enforce the law , when the AG and governor won't.

"To clarify the last question - Lets say that the Tiller killer had instead targeted the governor and the prosecutor for death. Would that have required more or less of an extraordinary measure to kill them instead? If not, why not? If so, why so?" The AG and the prosecutor did not, to my knowledge, murder viable babies in violation of the law. I don't understand your hypothetical question. Why would Tiller's killer want to kill them? Would I have sympathy for the Goldman family if the killed Johnny Cochran instead of OJ? No.

I do believe you are arguing for something here but I’m not sure what. I’ll try to explain my confusion.

When I say that non-violent legal remedies were available you respond that it’s a “disingenuous notion that reasonable legal measures weren’t exhausted”

I look at the situation and see that a governor could have been removed from office. New legislation could have been passed. Elections could have been won instead of lost. These are all legal means - they have NOT been exhausted - and your response to that is that these are “extraordinary measures”.

OK - let’s say that it’s extraordinary that a governor should have to be removed from office. So what. To my view that doesn’t make that removal less of a legal remedy. What does calling it an extraordinary measure change? What difference does it make? Why bring it up at all if it isn’t meant to be something that changes the game? What are you attempting to argue and accomplish by suggesting that these are “extraordinary measures”.

And BTW - I don’t think removing a governor is extraordinary. It’s very ordinary - literally. There is an order to it. It’s in state constitutions about how to do it. Common and ordinary are not the same.