[Poohbah]

He believed that there were women present at the abortion clinic who were under duress and had not given their voluntary and informed consent to have an abortion.

Mere belief that any of the women were under duress is insufficient. One must have specific evidence to support the claim with respect to a specific person--the belief must be "reasonable."

And the act of trespassing is considered sufficient evidence to create a "reasonable belief" that a person is intent on causing bodily harm to the owner or tenant of the property being trespassed on, and, depending on the demeanor of the trespasser, that "reasonable belief" may extend to the belief that the application of deadly force is warranted.

[Notwithstanding]

Well, I have personal knowledge of all the details of this case, and it is also a matter of the court record - that Mr. Goodson was non-threatening and the only reason he was considered a trespasser is because he asked the people who worked their questions about what goes on at the abortion clinic. One of the workers even swore that he was very calm and not at all threatening. In fact, the only person who were violent was the daughter of the abortionist - she actually attacked Mr. Goodson in a crazed fashion SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE KNEW HE HAS PRO-LIFE VIEWS (and she knew that because he had told her before in a very kind way that he was praying for her). Mr. Goodson is a pacifist.

Anyone else who goes to this abortuary and asks questions is not viewed as a trespasser.

The court has given Mr. Goodson damages for the tortious attack by the daughter - holding that her belief that Mr. Goodson was dangerous or a threat to be unreasonable.

TMLC does not take cases that are shaky.