[don-o]

"Moral outrage" and "protecting the unborn" does not justify cold-blooded murder. The local jury will not be sympathetic.

Thanks for the original post, Marianne.

But, the "necessity defense" is what is in play here. That means, that it is permissable, or even necessary to violate the law to prevent greater harm. The classic example is ignoring a "No Trespassing" sign on a fence around a swimming pool to save someone who is drowning.

The parallel for Kopp might be ignoring the law against first degree murder, in order to stop however many premediated murders that Slepian could be counted to commit, by his appointment book.

[MoralSense]

General question: The news media are always talking about "violence against abortion providers" as a form of right-wing terrorism (in their "equivalency" view). This is the one and only direct murder of an abortion doctor, isn't it? Or almost the one and only?

[Marianne]

The parallel for Kopp might be ignoring the law against first degree murder, in order to stop however many premediated murders that Slepian could be counted to commit, by his appointment book.
Everything that I have read about James Kopp, and testimony from his many friends, indicate that he would never take another's life because that would forever prevent that person from seeking forgiveness for his sins.
I wish you could see District Attorney Frank J. Clark when he makes his statements on TV. He can't wait to see Kopp convicted and sentenced.
Clark was outraged to hear that Barket described Kopp as a heroic figure. "We'll see how the jury looks at it," Clark said. "As far as I'm concerned, this was one of the most heinous, cowardly crimes I've ever seen."
The prosecution and, I'm afraid, the jury will not be swayed by a "necessity defense".