Posted on 02/26/2003 7:21:42 AM PST by RCW2001
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:41:53 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a federal racketeering law was improperly used to punish aggressive anti-abortion protesters, a major victory for people who regularly block clinic doors.
The court's 8-0 ruling applies to protests of all sorts, not just at clinics.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Your right of "free speech" ends when your exercise of it amounts to communication of a threat.
Poobs also indicates that he thinks an appropriate response toward those who are doing what they legally can to prevent a murder ought to be subjected to murder.
Sorry, but blocking someone from moving about their business, refusing to get out of their way when asked, and deliberately moving to prevent them from stepping around you--that's unlawful detention, and the way Scheidler does it resembles a mugger trying to distract his victim.
Even when people who are obviously unarmed illegally enter an abortion mill the appropriate response would not be to kill them.
If someone illegally enters my property while I am on it, and they do so in full knowledge that I am there, the rules on application of deadly force are much looser than otherwise would be the case. No one is "obviously unarmed" unless they are naked as the day they were born.
You do NOT have the 2nd amendment right to kill trspassers in broad daylight who are obviously not armed and dangerous.
Wrong. Anyone trespassing indoors while the owner/tenant is present, in full knowledge of that owner/tenant's presence, is presumed to be engaged in a higher level of threat than someone trespassing in a reasonable belief that the premises are unoccupied.
As for the "obviously not armed and dangerous" part, are the intruders wearing clothing? If they are, then their unarmed status is NOT obvious in any way, shape, or form.
Supreme Court Rules On Side Of Abortion Protesters
WBAL-TV, MD - 2 minutes ago
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court says the federal law against racketeering
shouldn't apply to anti-abortion protesters. It's a victory ...
US Supreme Court eases protest rules
The Globe and Mail, Canada - 2 hours ago
Washington — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a federal racketeering law
was improperly used to punish aggressive anti-abortion protesters, a major ...
US Supreme Court Rules Against Use of Racketeering Laws Against ... - WIVB
Supreme Court rules for abortion protesters in civil disobedience ... - San Jose Mercury News
Supreme Court Hands Pro-Lifers a Victory
Yahoo News - 1 hour ago
26 /PRNewswire/ -- The US Supreme Court ... Scheidler v. NOW, the infamous case involving
the misapplication of racketeering laws to silence anti-abortion ...
Supreme Court upholds Indiana abortion law
WTHR, IN - 23 hours ago
... That's when government leaders passed a law requiring women to have face-to-face
counseling 18 hours before the abortion takes place. Since the Supreme Court ...
Supreme Court clears way for more restrictions on abortions
NapaNet Daily News, CA - 19 hours ago
... Abortion rights supporters claim such restrictions are meant to chip away at the
right to an abortion secured by the Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade ruling 30 ...
Supreme Court clears way for abortion restrictions - Yahoo News
US Supreme Court allows toughest abortion rules to date - Salem Statesman Journal
Supreme Court clears way for Indiana's abortion restrictions - Minneapolis Star Tribune
Court Rules for Abortion Protesters
ABC News - 5 minutes ago
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that federal racketeering and extortion laws were
improperly used to punish aggressive anti-abortion protesters, lifting a ...
The only negative opinion I'm forming is of you.
True.
In fact, common law allows for this.
Problem: under common law, the unborn child is not a person.
Even when it does not, some will break an UNJUST law in order to save someone's life.
Again, you have a problem vis-a-vis the common law you're citing to defend your right.
Pooby, you apparently are not one of those people and dislike those who are.
Yeah, I tend to dislike ineffective wankers who do their best to support the enemy.
To date, I have not broken the law in this regard. But I laud those with the courage to do so - much like Rosa Parks, etc. who stood up to unjust laws.
People who do these things should be willing to pay the price for their actions - but that does not mean they ought not put up a legal fight.
Fine. They can put up a legal fight. But wh
Here, they have put up a legal fight and they have won.
Just as Clinton put up a legal fight during impeachment.
Shame on you for being such wetfish on such a great day.
So when do you celebrate Clinton's legal victory in the Senate?
You'd have a hard time arguing that before a jury, which is what ultimately counts, if someone wasn't threatening you with a deadly weapon.
Pro-life protesters don't mind being arrested for trespassing, etc. and are willing to take that chance. The RICO statutes, however were never designed to apply to political protests, and the fact that some liberal groups were arguing AGAINST their being applied to the pro-life groups underscored this.
This is far off topic, because the case concerned what constituted "extortion" under RICO, not what was legal self-defense. Legal self-defense is addressed by state law. Your statement doesn't hold in all jurisdictions, maybe not in any (as you phrased it).
In North Carolina, you cannot (legally) shoot someone who is in your house uninvited if he doesn't threaten you. (You can shoot him if you catch him forcing entry, but not if you find him already inside.) In many other states, if someone is inside your house uninvited, he's presumed to have evil intent and you have no "duty to retreat" (even if he wandered in through an unlocked door).
But the rules are different for a place of business -- which an abortion mill is -- during business hours. Otherwise, a store proprietor could simply sit by the door shooting people he didn't like as they came in the door, on the grounds of "self-defense."
Maybe you are hard of thinking.
The press and the appellate courts are not appropriate venues for airing the charge of perjury.
The proper venue is in a criminal court. Failure to file charges immediately after the discovery of alleged perjury is aiding and abetting after the fact.
Anyway, here is the link to the latest AP story:
Wonder how many of them believe this rationale is a reason to snipe at doctors or set bombs? How far are they willing to go - will they commit assault or mayhem after being told to leave?
And you don't know that that happened. Neither do I, as I said.
How far do you think a perjury charge against a witness for NOW is likely to get in a Federal DA's office in Chicago? You know, Chicago: where Republical election petitions are thrown at the ceiling; the ones that stick are good ... that Chicago?
Wrong.
The ROEs would be as follows:
Intruder enters my indoor property.
I draw my weapon and call: "HALT! GET DOWN! HALT! GET DOWN! HALT! GET DOWN!" This takes about five seconds.
At the end of the third "HALT! GET DOWN!" the intruder had best be getting down. If the intruder at any point moves to within arm's reach of my body or my weapon, then I am legally weapons free. If the intruder does not obey my order to halt and get down, I am legally weapons free. The stunts that Scheidler pulled, had they been pulled against a FReeper's home or business, would've gotten Scheidler's head blown off with FReeper approval.
The RICO statutes, however were never designed to apply to political protests, and the fact that some liberal groups were arguing AGAINST their being applied to the pro-life groups underscored this.
Yup, when you're allied with the seditionists looking to shut down as much of America as they can when we go to war, you're in REALLY good company--NOT.
The EXACT same thing happened to me yesterday, when I posted an article in "Breaking News". Even though the AP article had been filed maybe 10 minutes before I posted it here, SOMEHOW, someone else got nearly the exact same article about 5 hours earlier! After thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that what must happen is, from time to time on developing stories, a less detailed article will be posted, then, when an updated one is posted, kind of like here on FR when threads get bumped to the top, it's new "post time" becomes that later time, even though the story ITSELF is older than the actual post time.
Take home message as far as FR goes: Don't rely on the post time of the article to tell you how "old" the story is. Always use the "Search" feature.
FReeper's don't decide what's legal in this country. Legislatures and courts do that.
What you've described would have you in handcuffs in more than one jurisdiction, especially if your "indoor property" were an open place of business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.