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.
So, by that logic, "If you keep smoking, it's going to kill you" is a "threat," right? Of course it is.
A threat is when I tell you I am (or someone who answers to me is) going to do something bad to you. Merely telling you something bad is going to happen to you, without indicating that I myself am the agent, is not a threat, it's a warning.
People have been saying that for oh, about 1,970 years or so.
Aren't the end times supposed to...well...END some time?
You are probably right, but you forgot to mention that Islam is also a darling religion of the left.
Note that I don't necessarily agree.
It's not just an appeal to location, it's an appeal to the free association of those who attend the church.
If someone barges onto my property shouting that the wages of MY sins are death, I'm going to make several decisions in very rapid sequence, and it is quite possible that I would make a decision in favor of decisively engaging a perceived threat with the intent of promptly rendering said threat harmless. Once that decision is made, I would employ deadly force against the threat.
Generally, barging onto someone else's property, loudly shouting something at them, is a stupid thing to do in this day and age. And stupidity isn't a crime--but it has one punishment, which is awarded swiftly, ruthlessly, and without appeal.
I wondered if I was the only one who was feeling this way. I know it isn't right, but it does wear a little thin doesn't it?
Yep. You got it.
The intent of the perptrator is not nearly as important as the understanding of the "victim". If I say that I'm dunking you under water to wash away your sins, and you think that I'm trying to drown you, the courts will not care what my intent was. Even as a civil tort action for assault, the court only cares if you intend to say the words/perform the act, not if you intend to create an apprehension of imminent threat of harm with those words/actions.
(can you tell I just finished my first semester finals?)
Good point. If you can demonstrate (through words, actions or circumstances- like holding a knife) that your ability to carry out the threat is imminent, location is irrelevant.
Location, free association, whatever, has no bearing on whether actions of another constitute a threat against you that is legally actionable. What this case should be based on is whether the words uttered by the accused constitute a credible and specific threat by one individual against another. The scriptural texts quoted so far by various posters seem to be lacking in specificity. Can you distinguish the difference between "I'm going to harm you, Poobah, in such-and-such a way", and "the wages of sin is death", for example? I think a reasonable person could.
If someone barges onto my property...
You seem to be vesting a lot in the notion of your property. The article says the accused saw the accuser entering the clinic, so even that point is unclear. The courts have muddied the waters a bit on this issue by raising the notion of "public accomodation", like bars and diners. So at what point on those matters would you feel justified to claim as "your property" and employ deadly force? If someone came up to you on the sidewalk and read a Bible verse that you construed as a threat (which is wasn't), would that allow you to blow them away? Is the clinic a "public accomodation"? If this happened in a public place, maybe like a privately-owned mall or office building that you had an ownership stake in, would that suffice?
...shouting that the wages of MY sins are death, I'm going to make several decisions in very rapid sequence, and it is quite possible that I would make a decision in favor of decisively engaging a perceived threat with the intent of promptly rendering said threat harmless. Once that decision is made, I would employ deadly force against the threat.
Then you'd likely face appropriate criminal penalties, and rightly so, unless the threat was specific and credible. Simply stating that the wages of your sin are death, without a specific and credible indication that the person uttering those words was likely to be the agent of such an outcome and that such acts were imminent, your (lethal) actions probably would carry a heavy legal liability.
Generally, barging onto someone else's property, loudly shouting something at them, is a stupid thing to do in this day and age. And stupidity isn't a crime--but it has one punishment, which is awarded swiftly, ruthlessly, and without appeal.
Quite a barbaric and bloodthirsty thing to say. Look at the generality and vagueness in your words. You've implied that a loudly shouted word or phrase is grounds for lethal action. Fortunately, ours is a more civilized society, and the law offers appropriate sanctions against such barbaric and vigilante justice. If the person you fear comes into your private home uninvited and shouts "I'm gonna kill you, sucka!" and has a wild look about them and perhaps is brandishing a weapon, you'd probably be on safe ground to take lethal action (although, depending on things like race and income, you might be hit with legal actions nonetheless). However, if someone comes into your bar and shouts at you, "You know, you're one ugly honky!", and makes no further moves, but you kill him anyway because he shouted something at you on "your property", you're probably gonna go down in a big way. Your generalized statement places both acts on the same moral plane in terms of your permissible response(s), which is obviously not the case.
What this article likely shows, in essence, is that one individual was offended by another, and the offended party seeks to misuse and pervert the justice system to penalize the other person for their moral position. The nature of the offense seems to be rooted in the conflicting moral positions of each, and the tactics of non-violent protest, whicxh, in other venues, have been embraced and lauded by society as a means for bringing about peaceful change. Individuals and the government seem to be selectively (i.e., pro-life protestors) mobilizing against the free exercise of political speech, and that is dangerous to everyone. After years of protest and FReeping against Clinton, those on FR, more than most anyone else, should realize that.
Coming onto my property while doing so is frequently sufficient specific and credible indication of hostile intent. The intruder is intent on forcing a confrontation on private property while making a statement that mentions death, and generally acting in a belligerent, hostile manner. I've had to deal with people doing that (apparently, they feel they have a right to evangelize Catholics at 120 decibels while trespassing). On two occasions, I seriously considered employing deadly force.
I said that it is "quite possible" that I would use lethal force. It's not certain, and I haven't had to--YET.
Believe it or not, the old saw about one's right to swing one's first ending at someone's nose has got to be one of the dumbest lines there is. You may NOT swing your fist in the direction of my nose; doing so is going to result in an unpleasant reaction on my part.
Some of the pro-life crowd needs to get a clue. When someone does not want to talk to you, cast not your pearls before swine; better to shame them with silent witness against them.
The Beatitudes
(1) 1 And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. 2 Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.
12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
.
Note he taught this to the multitudes; wisdom for those who believe and those who do not.
It could be, but in general the courts, rightly or wrongly, have ruled that your subsequent actions may still be limited. You might be justified in physically throwing them out, but, again, unless there was, to a reasonable person, an indication of an imminent lethal action against you that you alone had to deal with, you'd likely not be justified, at least in a legal sense, taking lethal action. It is a stretch, IMO, that reading a Bible verse to someone on "public property" could be construed as posing an imminent lethal threat.
The intruder is intent on forcing a confrontation on private property while making a statement that mentions death, and generally acting in a belligerent, hostile manner. I've had to deal with people doing that (apparently, they feel they have a right to evangelize Catholics at 120 decibels while trespassing). On two occasions, I seriously considered employing deadly force.
Well, we share a common experience on the "evangelizing Catholics" score, but, to be honest, when anyone reads a Bible verse about the wages of sin is death, and are doing so in a manner that does not pose a credible and imminent threat of bodily harm, I'll just let it pass. Its my interpretation that such passges refer to the spiritual realm anyway and if someone comes to me as a fellow Christian I'll generally grant them the benefit of doubt in that they don't mean to pose a physical threat.
Believe it or not, the old saw about one's right to swing one's first ending at someone's nose has got to be one of the dumbest lines there is. You may NOT swing your fist in the direction of my nose; doing so is going to result in an unpleasant reaction on my part.
But, again, your interpretation of the act is not what constitutes, from a legal viewpoint, the classification of threat. Sure, if in the heat of an argument, someone takes a swing at you, its likely a reasonable person would interpret that as a threatening gesture, and you'd likely be on safe legal grounds to take (non-lethal, at least initially) actions to defend yourself. OTOH, the mere act of swinging a fist in your direction, in and of itself, with no further indication of hostile intent, might not be sufficient. How could that happen, you ask? Any number of ways. For example, just the other day I was working with someone and they reached their arm back to grab something behind them and I was working in a spot nearby. They almost poked me in my eye. Now, am I justified in knocking the snot out of them because of an unintentional swing in my direction? Hey, maybe I don't like the dude, he's a liberal Rat that I argue politics a lot with. I don't like his stand on abortion. But, you know, he took a swing at me (at least I interpet it that way). We'd better call the FBI in.
Some of the pro-life crowd needs to get a clue. When someone does not want to talk to you, cast not your pearls before swine; better to shame them with silent witness against them.
Reasonable people can disagree about tactics. The point of this article is that some individuals, aided by the government, seem to be prosecuting others because of things that are rooted in political disagreements. The use of RICO, for example, against pro-life groups, and the arrest of those who simply kneel in silent prayer near the abortion mills.
My concern is about the use of government power to quash legitimate and non-violent political dissent. Airing our grievances about social and public policy is a hard-won freedom that I think we should all cherish and protect. I know that places me on the side of protestors whose policies I disagree with, but they have as much right to display disagreement and grievances in public as we do. If the lady accused in this case was clearly in violation of legal statutes, then the accusers can pursue those, but those laws should not be used to stifle dissent and legitimate protest simply because the accused disagrees with a social policy or the moral basis of a law.
That's the problem. Since we've gotten past the point where one has to be within arm's reach or very strong to kill someone...it turns into a question of understanding nuance and shading.
Its my interpretation that such passges refer to the spiritual realm anyway
Tell that to some of the not-so-tightly-wrapped froot loops I've had to deal with over the years :o)
and if someone comes to me as a fellow Christian I'll generally grant them the benefit of doubt in that they don't mean to pose a physical threat.
Dude, some of the "fellow Christians" out there need remedial lessons in "Acting Christian 101."
I'm not kidding re: this stuff. I've generally quit going to clinic protests because of worries about what some of the "friendlies" might decide to do. About half of the "clinic security guards beat me up" stuff boils down to some people not knowing when to STFUAGA, and they decide that their right to speak equates to a right to get in people's faces.
There is no question that some tactics can be counterproductive in the sense of bad publicity or misunderstanding. But my concern is that the fallout of selective prosecutions of pro-life protestors will lead to a general hostility to all forms of protest, including those that you might find non-offensive. Because, as I said earlier, you can probably find someone who will be offended or feel threatened by almost anything. If that becomes the standard for the relentless hounding and pursuit of those who disagree with official and/or popular policy and opinion, we're all at risk.
Let's put it this way: I'm pretty sure that's not ALL this woman actually did, because the pro-aborts do not bring criminal charges of this nature just for jollies, and prosecutors don't seek indictments just for jollies.
'Gay' Reaction to Mrs. Stachowicz’s Murder: Silence to Applause
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.