LibriumArcana.Games

Link

[quote]WICHITA, Kan. — George Tiller, a Wichita doctor who was one of the few doctors in the nation to perform late-term abortions, was shot to death on Sunday as he attended church, city officials in Wichita said.

Dr. Tiller, who had performed abortions since the 1970s, had long been a lightning rod for controversy over the issue of abortion, particularly in Kansas, where abortion opponents regularly protested outside his clinic and sometimes his home and church. In 1993, he was shot in both arms by an abortion opponent but recovered.

He had also been the subject of many efforts at prosecution, including a citizen-initiated grand jury investigation. In the latest such effort, in March, Dr. Tiller was acquitted of charges that he had performed late-term abortions that violated state law.

The shooting occurred at around 10 a.m. (Central time) at Reformation Lutheran Church on the city’s East Side, Dr. Tiller’s regular church.

Wichita police said that the shots were fired from a handgun in the church lobby during the morning service. The authorities gave few details, but said they were searching for a powder blue Taurus made in the 1990s that had been seen leaving shortly after the shooting. They said witnesses had described seeing a white man departing.

“This is going to be a larger search than maybe just Wichita,â€

granted, these Terrorist tended to be on American Soil before Obama was in office....

A shame they felt the need to kill the Doctor. Do they think by killing him, that they change anything? That because the Abortionist is dead, that women suddenly won't get abortions if they need/want to?

Humanity is a stupid creature at times...

Having had close encounters, yea, they believe that removing the doctor doesn't just stop the women, they believe it stops the thought from entering their pretty little heads. After all, they're just women. They aren't smart enough to think of these things on their own.

Yes, it's that ridiculous.

"We're pro-life and god damnit we will kill you to ensure that we're right!"

Utter scum did this. This is why I support the death penalty.

They have a suspect. Salon.com is reporting the guy was arrested in '96 for a slew of lolbertarian-type offenses, and had 'bomb-making materials' in his car. A poster by the same name had threatened the doctor before on Operation Rescue's website.

The Attorney General, Eric Holder, had this to say, via TPM. Link

"The murder of Doctor George Tiller is an abhorrent act of violence, and his family is in our thoughts and prayers at this tragic moment. Federal law enforcement is coordinating with local law enforcement officials in Kansas on the investigation of this crime, and I have directed the United States Marshals Service to offer protection to other appropriate people and facilities around the nation. The Department of Justice will work to bring the perpetrator of this crime to justice. As a precautionary measure, we will also take appropriate steps to help prevent any related acts of violence from occurring."

What do you know.. Cheney was right. Obama wins, and we have terrorists on American soil.

When did we stop having terrorists on American soil?

General Havoc wrote:Utter scum did this. This is why I support the death penalty.

Ironically, this is one reason (of several) why I don't support the death penalty.

This person believed that the doctor in question was a de facto serial killer. He felt that he therefore deserved to be put down, and saw that society was not able or willing to do so. Of course, the chief problem was that he was also a vigilante and showed great lack of judgment, but nonetheless...

This person believed that the doctor in question was a de facto serial killer. He felt that he therefore deserved to be put down, and saw that society was not able or willing to do so.

How would a lack of a death penalty change that? If anything going by your wording a lack of death penalty would encourage someone as unhinged as this to consider soceity "not able or willing" would it not?

frigidmagi wrote:

This person believed that the doctor in question was a de facto serial killer. He felt that he therefore deserved to be put down, and saw that society was not able or willing to do so.

How would a lack of a death penalty change that? If anything going by your wording a lack of death penalty would encourage someone as unhinged as this to consider soceity "not able or willing" would it not?

So we should apply the death penalty so that unhinged people don't go around killing? :/

But see, he felt that the doctor deserved the death penalty. The only way the death penalty being in place could discourage him from killing the doctor would be if the doctor would have that penalty over his head, which of course he did not.

In fact, it might encourage him more if serial killers suffer the death penalty and the doctor he thinks is a serial killer does not receive that penalty. He might see that as a violation of justice.

The application or non-application of the death penalty has nothing whatsoever to do with whether unhinged people will or won't go about killing. Whether or not this lunatic thought the doctor deserved to die has nothing to do with whether or not the death penalty exists.

The reason that things like this are why I support the death penalty is so that it can be applied to the animal who committed this crime (whoever they are). Not because it would cause or prevent the murder from happening in the first place.

An animal WOULDN'T have committed this crime. Animals kill in defense of self/offspring/territory, or to GAIN territory (social or geographic). Killing over differences in philosophy is something only humans do. (Well something only humans are KNOWN to do. For all I know there's species out there that are every bit as stupid as us).

An animal WOULDN'T have committed this crime. Animals kill in defense of self/offspring/territory, or to GAIN territory (social or geographic).

Yes and No. Some animals are known to kill for shit and giggles. Male Elephants teens will kill rhinos out of sheer boredom and Dolphins will kill smaller porpoises for the same. Meanwhile how often does your average housecat kill just because it can?

Never, though I thank you for the correction. When animals kill for 'shits and giggles', they mostly do to MAKE SURE THEY STILL CAN.
When you're average housecat kills, it's either a)because they think they're doing you a favour what with them giving you a perfectly edible rodent free of charge, and what's all the fuss about, or b) they know perfectly well what the fuss is about, what with there BEING said fuss being the reason why they killed the poor rodent to begin with.
Basically, they're either trying to be helpful or trying to see how far they can push you before you throw them out.

I'm not talking about "gifts" I'm talking about how housecats will kill birds or lizards and just leave the dead body.

And some how I doubt Dolphins and Elephants need those killing skills. Dolphins don't eat porpoises and elephants have no need to kill rhinos. These are literally gangs of young males just picking on smaller animals.

Orcas will regularly kill juvenile grey, blue and humpback whales and they have also been documented spending hours biting holes in an adult blue whale till it bled to death, then they just watched it sink. There was a Renegade female chimp and her daughter that would steal juvenile chimps and kill them for no reason. Later autopsy showed that the female had a malformed hypothalimus and after her death the daughter no longer killed other chimps.

Hyenas are born in pairs however the vast majority of the time one of the cubs will kill their sibling. OH Sea otters will hold kits of other sea otters ransom for food or sex. Truth is humans don't have a monopoly on pointless killing the chemical triggers that often cause aggression are common in all mammals. There are several recorded incidents of animals that are literally insane (mostly dolphins and primates).

As for the death penalty, I don't think that it works effectively as a deterrent to murder especially in individuals with skewed views of the world and some sort of vigilante complex. Yet both the death penalty and life in prison are expensive burdens for the government both of them effectively do the same thing.

frigidmagi wrote:

What do you know.. Cheney was right. Obama wins, and we have terrorists on American soil.

When did we stop having terrorists on American soil?

There were some studies recently about how the American loonies tend to go quiet when Republicans are in power but go nuts again when Democrats are instead. Hence the militias and so forth during the Clinton years followed by nary a peep out of them during the Bush years.

Sure, that said, but there were still a number of attacks in the Bush years. The Anthrax scare for example, a Muslim teenager attacking a mall with a firearm, another Muslim attack in a college via suburban, etc, etc, etc.

There's never been a period without terrorists on US soil in the first place.

My statement was a reference to the Right Wing talking point, so often championed by Cheney, that there were no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11.

Yes, it's stupid.

General Havoc wrote:The application or non-application of the death penalty has nothing whatsoever to do with whether unhinged people will or won't go about killing. Whether or not this lunatic thought the doctor deserved to die has nothing to do with whether or not the death penalty exists.

I agree with that, I didn't think that the presence of the death penalty in society per se affected his behavior, it was more the philosophy that the death penalty is justifiable. Of course, there will be lunatics who will kill even without that...


Oh, and sorry about the tardiness of the response.