A week ago or so I posted “Is this a valid defense?” at a thread on this and got a bunch of replies claiming it was. Then there were a couple of replies here trying to rationalize his defense(saving lives) , but not entirely justifying it. My meaning was that those that do this and call themselves ‘pro-life’ do a dis-service to themselves and their message by rationalizing it. (food for MSNBC)
Obviously no one that calls themself ‘prolife’ is going to post that this guy was the term ‘pro-life’ because they know how silly it sounds.
Not a good idea to posts lists. I saw a freeper zotted.
There is, in a law, such a thing as a "justification defense," (sometimes called "necessity defense" or "choice- of-evils defense.") In the past, but very infrequently, it has prevailed in misdemeanor cases (e.g. simple trespass.) And there are cases where it is justifiable: it's certainly legitimate to discuss it.
I'd be very much surprised if any FReepers said it was applicable in a 1st degree murder case. I knew, personally, such a murdrer once (Jim Kopp). My best guess is that he would attract a measure of conflicted pity here, but no applause.