Posted on 12/19/2002 7:36:51 AM PST by victim soul
The U.S. Attorney's office will convene a grand jury in order to seek an indictment against a local pro-life activist, Terri Palmquist. Mrs. Palmquist's alleged offense is threatening abortionist Kenneth Wright by reading passages of the Bible to him.
On July 9, 2002, Mrs. Palmquist, who regularly leaflets and counsels at the Family Planning Alternatives abortuary, saw Wright entering the clinic and read to him passages from Ezekiel 33 concerning admonishing the evildoer to turn from his sins lest he die. Although Wright has seen Mrs. Palmquist at the clinic for years and did not appear concerned at the time, he reported the incident to police and the FBI as a death threat despite Mrs. Palmquist's explanation to him that she meant no threat.
Wright also sought a restraining order against Mrs. Palmquist, trying to prevent her from coming within 150 yards of him or the clinic. After a three-hour hearing at which Wright testified about Mrs. Palmquist's alleged threatening activities, Judge Wallace of the Kern County Superior Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to warrant issuing any order against Mrs. Palmquist and dismissed Wright's case.
In spite of this vindication of Mrs. Palmquist, the FBI has continued to hound her and anyone associated with her, seeking evidence that she is violent and a threat to Wright. On Dec. 19 Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Escobar, acting under U.S. Attorney John Vincent, will present this "evidence" to a grand jury in hopes of having Mrs. Palmquist indicted on felony charges. At this time the specific charges are a matter of speculation. "They will either seek an indictment for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act or some alleged terrorist threat," stated Brian Chavez-Ochoa, who has taken Mrs. Palmquist's case on behalf of Life Legal Defense Foundation.
He never started so the house is still a mess...
My point is this. Unless this was a credible and specific threat made by one individual against another, my fear is that it is yet another example of the Thought Police out there running amok, and once again specifically targeting anti-abortion protestors. We've had cases were protestors were arrested for kneeling in prayer. Other cases where individuals and groups have been dragged into court on bogus RICO charges. In the end, what should be protected political dissent is quashed in the name of political correctness. We should all be concerned when someone makes a crime out of another's speech because they "feel" threatened, or "feel" offended, or "feel" uncomfortable. Because under those terms just about anything anyone says or does could be found to be a criminal act. When legal actions are taken on the basis of feelings, stretched and twisted however one wants, we're all walking liable and/or criminal cases.
I said no such thing. I said hearing the Bible in a church is nowhere close to an unsolicited sermon on the street.
If you're serious that you consider what this woman did was a legitimate threat, then everything else is window dressing.
I dont know the entire story and all of the specifics, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the woman had harassed people around the clinic for quite some time. Whether she meant it as a threat or not, I couldn't say. But intelligent people realize that when you talk about your religion's view of "death as a punishment for certain acts", you better understand that a person who does not believe in your religion may see that as a threat. Its not that different than we seeing tenants of Islam being a threat to all non-believers(not that I am claiming the Bible supports violence for non-belief, but many have used it that way over the past 2000 years).
my fear is that it is yet another example of the Thought Police out there running amok, and once again specifically targeting anti-abortion protestors.
Any continual harasser or trespasser should expect the same treatment. Didn't you see what the cops did to the enviro-whackos protesting in the streets at the WTO meetings?
We've had cases were protestors were arrested for kneeling in prayer. Other cases where individuals and groups have been dragged into court on bogus RICO charges.
I agree that RICO charges are bogus in these circumstances.
In the end, what should be protected political dissent is quashed in the name of political correctness. We should all be concerned when someone makes a crime out of another's speech because they "feel" threatened, or "feel" offended, or "feel" uncomfortable. Because under those terms just about anything anyone says or does could be found to be a criminal act. When legal actions are taken on the basis of feelings, stretched and twisted however one wants, we're all walking liable and/or criminal cases.
I can't say I disgaree, but Its not like this woman walked up to the guy one time and said, "Excuse me sir, I'd like to share something with you that I feel is very important and may help you in the long run".
By this time, everyone knows that there is a large portion of Americans out there who believe abortion is wrong based upon their religion. It does no good to sit there on sidewalks outside abortion clinics praying, yelling or harassing doctors and patients. I think these activities need to be seen as harassment. This isn't "free speech". We(the taxpayers) do not have to provide protesters a forumn.
If, as a Yankee fan (in baseball and not the War of Yankee Aggression), I shout at Red Sox fans: You will never win a World Series in your lifetime or God's lifetime, it is of course not a threat because: 1) it is a reality as an immutable result of the curse of the Bambino; and 2) I am not personally capable of making them lose since I am neither the Bambino nor am I god nor am I even Alfonso Soriano.
As witness the persecution of a woman for having the effrontery to read the actual Bible in the Godless presence of a heathen child-killer, in light of Roe vs. Wade and its, ummm, progeny, and the life work of SCOTUS since 1936, and the remarkable usurpation that occurred in Marbury vs. Madison and several historical controversies near and dear to your heart and mine, we are most certainly NOT a nation of laws.
You get to tell them to shut up, and then you get to walk away if they refuse.
No one here is advocating a theocracy - you're just trying to find a way to use your favorite buzzword.
Your page self-describes you as a libertarian. It's an odd kind of libertarian who believes in freedom for everyone except Christians. It's also a odd kind of libertarian who advocates taking the life of the weakest and most defenceless people.
I'm not sure who the "Nine" you serve are - but they must hate freedom.
Thanks, that's all about you I need to know. Obviously you are against free speech if it involves any religion.
I'm getting the posters in the thread mixed up.
But intelligent people realize that when you talk about your religion's view of "death as a punishment for certain acts", you better understand that a person who does not believe in your religion may see that as a threat.
This is where the argument breaks down. You're statement implies that the criminality is vested in another's interpretation of an individual's actions. The law has traditionally (although we've seen some erosion of this with the advent of "hate crimes" legislation) distinguished between thoughts and actions. My concern is that if you criminalize something based on another's interpretation or feeling about one's verbally-expressed thoughts, unless those expressions contain specific, credible threats to the other's well-being, you've opened the floodgates to all sorts of thought crimes. And not just reasonable disagreements on political or social issues, but anything.
By this time, everyone knows that there is a large portion of Americans out there who believe abortion is wrong based upon their religion. It does no good to sit there on sidewalks outside abortion clinics praying, yelling or harassing doctors and patients. I think these activities need to be seen as harassment. This isn't "free speech". We(the taxpayers) do not have to provide protesters a forumn.
You are free to disagree about tactics, but, from what was presented in the article, this woman's actions appear to be, while perhaps annoying to those who disagree with her, somewhat shaky grounds for criminal prosecution. Again, were there specific and credible threats made to the physical well-being of the offended party, threats made personally by the accused against the accuser? My sense is that this is a case that revolves around one person being offended by the 1) moral position, and 2) tactics (although non-harmful and thus not morally equivalent to the case you raised about the WTO protestors) of another. Criminalizing persons who may offend others because of their political beliefs and non-violent means of expressing them is another step down the long road to tyranny.
The First Amendment was not necessary to protect public recitations of Mary Had a Little Lamb. It was necessary to protect the right to annoy the hell out of those with whom we disagree vehemently or otherwise. The local abortion mill here has loudspeakers to annoy pro-lifers by reading specific details of alleged child molestations by priests to annoy Catholic pro-lifers and other messages for Protestant pro-lifers. The pro-lifers have to learn to live with such speech, however outrageous, and so do the babykillers. We have a right to be publicly rude. Our enemies hate to be mocked or laughed at. We call it America.
Remember the immortal words of the late Mayor Richard Daley, the Greater, who, after being verbally attacked by his foes, solemnly intoned before the TV cameras: "I have been vilified. I have been crucified. I HAVE EVEN BEEN CRITICIZED!!!!" Take that as your inspiration to speak truth to power.
Beware, there are speech-stiflers about in libertarian clothing, no less, or was that libertine clothing?
Libertarians are sometimes quite principled folks who, though they may sin, at least have the decency not to reuire that you sin too. Real libertarians will also recognize the positive power of ostracism (shunning) as a substitute for busybody government. If we had a law requiring everyone to have fire insurance to pay a private fire company to put out fires, we might jail the homeowner who does not pay premiums. This is rather a drastic solution, particularly where that homeowner is ready, willing and able to pay for any services necessary to prevent his fire from burning your house. It is a lot less exp[ensive for all concerned to shun deadbeats than to jail them.
If a libertine would particpate in the discussion, he or she might ask for another joint (smokable not livable).
But certainly I was moved to overestimate the number of negative hits...hyperbole. I stand muddied and contrite.
Matthew 5:11-12
When you are reviled and persecuted and lied about because you are My followers--wonderful! Be happy about it! Be very glad! for a tremendous reward awaits you up in heaven. And remember, the ancient prophets were persecuted too.
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.