Planned Parenthood Shooting Suspect Made Comment About 'No More Baby Parts'

well, abc is reporting that the secret service is now involved because of the comments he made about obama, and it also seems to suggest that there was more than one comment about planned parenthood.

abcnews.go.com...

Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers said he was not aware of any threats to the clinic, but said "we can speculate" on the motive.

"It happened at a Planned Parenthood center," he said. "My suspicions are that has a lot to do with the motive."

What a joke.

'We can speculate'.

'My suspicions'.

That right there is why we have courts of law.

That right there is one of the reasons of DUE process, and crimes be proven in courts of law in front a jury of peers.

It is absolutely disgusting the SNIP being flung.

a reply to: neo96
and when the courts rule, there's still a segment of the population that will disagree with the ruling....
heck there's been investigation after investigation into planned parenthood over those videos, with nothing illegal found, and still.....some wish not to believe it.
hillary clinton, anyone??

so let's see, can't trust the media...
can't trust the courts...
can't trust congressional investigations....
can't trust eyewitnesses...
what does that leave us with, outside of an "I live in my own little world and unless I experience or see it first hand, it didn't happen"? nope, there isn't any wars, haven't seen any bombs falling from the sky.. nope there's no terrorists either, after all ain't nothing around here been blown up or shot up. occasionally, I get stupid phone calls with recorded messages from people claiming to be running for this or that office, but since I haven't seen them first hand, well, I just chalk it up to prank phone calls.

it seems to me that both sides are very well known to do what you are complaining about. heck, wars have been started on hearsay!!!!

a reply to: dawnstar

Yo politics are not on trial here, and never will be.

That's what fascists, and communists do.

Dears action is doesn't matter 'why'.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It wouldn't surprise me if this kind of behavior and conditioning by the media and the rapid onslaught of information constantly coming at people in general isn't causing or at the very least rapidly exacerbating mental illness in the world. Add to that the rapid ability to tribalize with those of like minds, and you have a recipe for disaster. I'm sure that in a few decades it'll be a legit disease with a drug all its own.

wait wut? violent music, movies and games don't promote violence but news telecasts do?

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It wouldn't surprise me if this kind of behavior and conditioning by the media and the rapid onslaught of information constantly coming at people in general isn't causing or at the very least rapidly exacerbating mental illness in the world. Add to that the rapid ability to tribalize with those of like minds, and you have a recipe for disaster. I'm sure that in a few decades it'll be a legit disease with a drug all its own.

wait wut? violent music, movies and games don't promote violence but news telecasts do?

That's the problem with thought police, they only want to police their enemies' thoughts.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: dawnstar

Yo politics are not on trial here, and never will be.

That's what fascists, and communists do.

Dears action is doesn't matter 'why'.

Well some folks are actively trying to put people's politics on trial with this. The shooter's motivations do matter as far as being able to charge him with terrorism.

The problem is the first point, if you read the various political blogs (errr I mean 'news' sites) they have been calling for a massive expansion of what can be called terrorism in addition to many things. The politicians need to stir up emotional engagement to get an underwhelmed electorate motivated to vote. This idea is all the rage in anthropology, journalism, and various humanities courses the pundits take at school.

This could be terrorism, we don't know the official charges or details about motivations.

But the massive outcry for labelling this right-wing christian terrorism, before the details are out, is a result of political radicalization. It is the exact same as seen on the other side of the political spectrum.

I continue to hope members here will fact check and question the motivation behind what they are saying even if it seems to not be occurring much for any of our local pundits.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I read somewhere that the feds won't bring terrorism charges against the guy unless the state's case falls through.

The problem is the first point, if you read the various political blogs (errr I mean 'news' sites) they have been calling for a massive expansion of what can be called terrorism in addition to many things. The politicians need to stir up emotional engagement to get an underwhelmed electorate motivated to vote.

It seems that their favorite emotion to play with is fear, and that is concerning since it so often leads to a "flight or fight" mentality. From the idea that God will destroy us because of gays and abortion to obama pushing granny off the cliff.....sharia laws, economic collapse, terrorists out to kill us, and on and on.....gee can't imagine why people would be losing it! There was a time when the mainstream news sources were just that, a source for news. Now, it seems that the journalists just don't know how to report the news without bending it to fit their own personal agenda. So, now, we got the Fox News folks against the CNN folks even.

So, well, the why is important to me and worthy of discussion. Why can't fully protect ourselves from the crazies without giving up too many rights, but we can take note of what is creating the crazies to begin with and maybe there would be less need to have to give up those rights if we just checked ourselves and realized just how much the media is playing us.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Why would that matter? That'd be like outlawing rap videos because thugs slaughter each other in the inner city.

No one is suggesting outlawing free speech.

Without a doubt unstable minds, teetering on the edge, are swayed by the blaring, ugly and often dishonest rhetoric of the polarized culture war.

We also live in an unprecedented time in history where a tweet or Facebook post can accelerate to national attention in a blink of an eye, with less scrutiny (and often just the opposite) by formerly legitimate news organizations who in the past felt morally obligated to moderate the emotional appeal and veracity of claims.

In short, our democracy of free speech, a noble contest of ideas and debate centered on facts with all participants aiming for the best welfare of our nation as a whole...has devolved into merciless, dehumanizing gang warfare of rhetoric...truth be damned, integrity and morals viewed as a liability...and innocent people will literally die.

The responsibility is not the governments to decide the outcomes of the new world where vitriolic social media campaigns and Facebook and Twitter is the new "news". It is not governments responsibility or right to throttle that flood of hateful and dishonest nonsense....It is OURS.

We live in a world where never before has our own voices and opinions reached more of the masses and it is WE...US...who need to rise to that responsibility.

Shooters in the past have been shown to frequent ATS...this forum. We might never know fully how many.

But imagine a world where each of one us took a moment to realize that some anonymous, less stable person might be reading our posts and be in some small way encouraged to take deadly action?

Whatever the outcome, the internet now means we live in that world where in some small or large way our words and rhetoric have greater consequence than they ever did before and it is our responsibility to bear, not governments...

Just my 2 cents..

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I read somewhere that the feds won't bring terrorism charges against the guy unless the state's case falls through.

Then I do not trust your source.

In todays climate the Feds will not file terrorism charges against anyone unless they shout "allahu akbar" during the crime.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

When a woman is pregnant, there's two bodies. Two people with rights. It's an opinion in your mind that it's a right for all woman to choose what to do with their bodies, there's no factual evidence to back up either side of this argument.

I'm pro-choice for my own reasons, but it's crazy to see how upset people on either side get, and how right they think they are. Humans are much more complex than a blanket statement, on any issue.

To act like pro-life people fuel the actions of this man..theres not one thing in the Constitution that defines a fetus as a non human with no rights, a slave to the mother carrying it. Until such a time, you're opinion that it is in the bill of rights or constitution is just that.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

When a woman is pregnant, there's two bodies. Two people with rights.

Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true. There is the woman's body, and MANY group of cells within. A fetus doesn't have any more rights than my appendix does.

the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has a constitutionally guaranteed unqualified right to abortion in the first trimester of her pregnancy.
...
In making its decision, the Court ruled that a fetus is not a person under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Idea of Fetal Rights

It's an opinion in your mind that it's a right for all woman to choose what to do with their bodies, there's no factual evidence to back up either side of this argument.

The 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

theres not one thing in the Constitution that defines a fetus as a non human with no rights ... you're opinion that it is in the bill of rights or constitution is just that.

I'm not citing the Constitution. I'm citing The Supreme Court's rulings, which interpret the Constitutionality of laws and actions.

This is the same supreme court that brought us Dred Scott and Plessey verses ferguson. they are hardly infallible and stare decisis ensures their errors are enshrined in law when in reality they do not have the power to write law.

only a complete blockhead would base a legal decision supporting the right to effect execution of a human on an uninnumerated right of privacy when logic dictates that there is a hierarchy of rights when rights are in conflict and that life should supercede privacy. if you bust into my toilet stall in a store i cannot shoot you.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Oh, I have no personal qualms with first trimester abortions. I suppose I could ask questions, or we could define specific terms of abortions more easily with some type of name other than "first term abortion"

Unless I've just not followed closely enough to the issues to realize that is what most advocate for.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
This is the same supreme court that brought us Dred Scott and Plessey verses ferguson. they are hardly infallible and stare decisis ensures their errors are enshrined in law when in reality they do not have the power to write law.

I am well aware that they are human and not infallible. There are rulings I disagree with, too. But it's what we've got.

"Execution of a human" is a phrase born of your opinion (that abortion is 'execution' and that mass inside a woman is a 'human'). And you are free to have that opinion. But because it is an opinion only, you are not free to impose it on others' behavior.

I understand that people are anti-abortion. But do you REALLY think the government should have the power to take responsibility and ownership of a pregnant woman's body away from her for 9 months and not allow her free access and the right of personal decision as regards her very person?

I agree that a person's right to life should supersede one's rights to privacy. But, then again, you're awarding a mass inside someone's body the title of "person", based on your opinion. Not everyone shares your opinion.

And as regards the right of the woman to her life, it's well-known that there are many dangers in pregnancy and childbirth, including the very real possibility of death. Every two minutes, a woman dies from pregnancy or childbirth-related causes. Source Don't we ALL have the right to say whether or not we're wiling to face the possibility of our own death, when there is a perfectly viable means to prevent it?

If I smoked cigarettes and got lung cancer, but there was a perfectly viable way to get a treatment that would clear it up, does (or should) the government have the power to prevent me from getting that treatment because I once smoked?

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Oh, I have no personal qualms with first trimester abortions.

Well, I do. Once I knew I was pregnant, there was a human being growing inside me. Having an abortion at any time is abhorrent to me. So we don't need to have questions or draw lines or anything like that, because an abortion is an abortion to me.

My position doesn't have to do with whether it's a "life" or a "human" or if there's a heartbeat or how long it's been cooking. My position is very clear. What happens inside another human being's body, and the decisions they make about it, are NONE of ANYONE else's business. I don't know or care if my neighbor has had her gall bladder removed or if my vet has had a vasectomy. It is not my life and I have no authority over it. Their decisions about their bodies are their own. Not mine and not the government's.

So, no, we don't need to talk about defining any specific terms. That stuff is irrelevant to the right of autonomy.

a reply to: Indigo5

Yeah, there are no nuts out there who would kill or urge people to kill. Here's a self-proclaimed Christian, former pastor, and Mr Red Starbuck Cup, who many Christian groups do not agree with, by the way...not saying that they do...spouting some pretty strong stuff about punishing Planned Parenthood.

Is this responsible? Is this what freedom of speech and political incorrectness looks like? Or is he just another media attention whore and egoistic opportunist? We clearly have a problem and like you said, we have to fix it. Not sure how, but we have to try.

Imagine an already mentally unbalanced person hearing and perhaps acting on this.

a reply to: ~Lucidity
I didn't click on that video because I don't want to give him my attention even for half a minute.
Why would you post such a thing and give him attention if you consider it vile?
I simply don't understand.