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.