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

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 ]


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

Fine. Trespassing does not accomplish this.

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.

Sorry, but if he's talking to the workers and not the customers, there is a significant delta--spinning does not change that FACT.

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).

Again, he's talking to the wrong people.

There is no variance.

There is a BIG variance.

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

Sorry. The law is pretty clear--once you are notified of the fact of trespass, your one single duty is to leave. Anything else, and force may be used to ensure your departure.

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

Trespassing on private property is, in no way whatsoever, peaceful.

- 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) -

The Kingdom is full of idiots whose first words to St. Peter were "but he seemed so kind and prayerful..."

was going to attack her abortionist dad.

Multiple trespassing convictions have a tendency to convince people of this.

She jumped on him extremely violently and he immediately went all passive and limp. (Witnesses who work there confirmed all this).

He was told to leave. He didn't. Them's the breaks.

She then knelt on his head and back with all her weight.

If you do NOT leave when you are told, I can employ force to MAKE you leave.

(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).

Sorry. The only way that Goodson would be "extremely reasonable" is if he showed extreme obedience to the law and didn't trespass, or left extremely rapidly once he was told to get out.

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

The clinic worker's lack of respect for property rights is immaterial.

Facts are great things.

And, somewhere, the facts as described by you and the facts as described by the TMLC are at variance.

42 posted on 02/12/2003 5:26:35 PM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: Notwithstanding
OK Not, so you'd have no problem If I walked into your Place, uninvited, provided all I want to do is calmly talk about my views?

56 posted on 02/12/2003 9:26:45 PM PST by Lord_Baltar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | 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