Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Notwithstanding
You're describing Mr. Goodman as merely entering the clinic to ask questions of the staff. The TMLC describes him as entering to help the women scheduled for abortions that day. The two descriptions are at significant variance, because of who is allegedly being addressed in each case.

Second, given that Mr. Goodman has a history of trespassing at this facility, you can conclude that he knows that his presence isn't wanted by the tenants. Curiously, the TMLC neglects to mention this point.

If you are trespassing on my property, I will politely ask you to leave. I will do so exactly once. I will not repeat myself. I am not required to repeat myself. If you do not endeavour to immediately obey my request, you can expect some unpleasantness. I will use the minimum force necessary to ensure your departure. If you attempt to resist ejection from my property, the force applied will escalate accordingly. You may choose to characterize it as a "violent attack." The law does not.

36 posted on 02/12/2003 4:59:31 PM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: Poohbah
His intent was to try to save babies and assist mothers to avoid being tricked into aborting (as is so often the case).

But his actions - the actions encountered by the abortuary workers - were simply talking to them about what was going on at the clinic very calmly. I understand that the workers are on record swearing to that. TMLC is correct in its article and I am also correct. No variance.

His success or failure in accomplishing waht he intended does not change his intent, and his tactic in first talking calmly to the workers was his way to embark upon achiving his stated goal (eventually preventing moms from being hoodwinked into allowing the abortionist to kill their babies).

There is no variance.

And as to your contention about what is allowable when it comes to ejecting trespassers, the judge disagreed with you.

The facts are that the daughter went crazy - irrationally and with no reasonable belief - thinking that this very very peaceful man

- who was simply talking and exhibited no violent behavior and who she KNEW to be a man of prayer and kindness (she is on record admitting that her only prior contact was seeing him praying for her and him talking to her calmly about how he was praying for her and her dad) -

was going to attack her abortionist dad. She jumped on him extremely violently and he immediately went all passive and limp. (Witnesses who work there confirmed all this).

She then knelt on his head and back with all her weight.
(All in front of several other clinic workers who confirmed that he was absolutely passive and prayerful and calm and extremely reasonable - even though the daughter was the one who was nutso and scary the whole time).

The clinic worker even told the daighter to stop being such an idiot.

Facts are great things.







40 posted on 02/12/2003 5:18:06 PM PST by Notwithstanding (Satan is real. So are his minions. Palpy is one of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson