Ex-wife says clinic suspect targeted Planned Parenthood

bigstory.ap.org...

In an interview with NBC News from South Carolina, Barbara Mescher Michaux said Robert Dear put glue in the locks of another Planned Parenthood clinic when they were married more than 20 years ago. She characterized him in an affidavit she filed to divorce him in 1993 and in her Tuesday interview as a violent, isolated man, matching the descriptions of others who knew the 57-year-old suspect.

She added that he appeared devoutly religious. "He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic, but he does not follow the Bible in his actions," Michaux wrote. "He says as long as he believes he will be saved, he can do whatever he pleases. He is obsessed with the world coming to an end."

For Robert Dear, Religion and Rage Before Planned Parenthood Attack

A number of people who knew Mr. Dear said he was a staunch abortion opponent, though another ex-wife, Pamela Ross, said that he did not obsess on the subject. After his arrest, Mr. Dear said “no more baby parts” to investigators, a law enforcement official said.

One person who spoke with him extensively about his religious views said Mr. Dear, who is 57, had praised people who attacked abortion providers, saying they were doing “God’s work.” In 2009, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of concerns for the privacy of the family, Mr. Dear described as “heroes” members of the Army of God, a loosely organized group of anti-abortion extremists that has claimed responsibility for a number of killings and bombings.

While investigators have yet to release any information about this man we are learning from his ex wives, acquaintances, and family members what kind of person he is. So far, we're learning he has a violent temper, beats & rapes women, is a loner, has no friends, is a evangelical Christian that is obsessed with the end of the word, he sins because he thinks he'll be saved, and he's targeted Planned Parenthood in the past.

Was this murderer aware of the CMP's videos and the rhetoric behind it? Was that the driving force behind his murderous attack? If that's the case, then he is a perfect example of why such rhetoric is so dangerous. He does not represent the conservative base but he very well may identify with the conservative base. The hype over the selling of dead babies only fuels deranged minds like his to commit such evil acts. He knew what he was doing. When he was in court he had little to say but understood his crimes and did not argue with the judge. Does he believe he is a hero and is accepting responsibility for his actions? I would say, yes.

Sounds also like he is a very dim bulb.

Expect crickets.

That's what I got when I posted this earlier.

a reply to: schuyler

He's a lot things for sure and from what we're learning they're mostly bad. I think he has a two year college degree, for whatever that's worth.

originally posted by: schuyler
Sounds also like he is a very dim bulb.

I am not going to disagree with you. I have no idea what this man's motivation was, so other than saying he is a nut job, I am withholding my opinions on his motivation.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Expect crickets.

That's what I got when I posted this earlier.

Well of course his motives are going to get crickets. No one wants to admit Christian extremism exists, let alone Christian terrorists. The other option is for dialogue for excuses a la "conspiracy to make us look bad" or similar because Christians are perfect and never violent.

a reply to: Nyiah

I'm pretty sure extremism exists in every form of religion there is but you may be right in some people not wanting to accept that fact. The DOJ is building a domestic terrorist case against him if somehow the state case was sidetracked, whatever that means.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Expect crickets.

That's what I got when I posted this earlier.

Well of course his motives are going to get crickets. No one wants to admit Christian extremism exists, let alone Christian terrorists. The other option is for dialogue for excuses a la "conspiracy to make us look bad" or similar because Christians are perfect and never violent.

No matter the religious affiliation or lack thereof, all should be simply called terrorists including those involved in the abortion process.

a reply to: Swills

Who cares about his motivation. He deserves nothing but the death penalty so he can meet his god. I will always blame HIM for the crime.

To even suggest that anyone else's free expression was the cause sounds a lot like the precursor to censorship.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I care about his motive and so does everyone else. I hold him accountable and apparently he holds himself accountable as well, probably thinks he's a hero.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: DBCowboy

I care about his motive and so does everyone else. I hold him accountable and apparently he holds himself accountable as well, probably thinks he's a hero.

Okay. Good for you. I also want to hold him accountable.

But

What I don't want to see is a call for censorship on opinion pieces that people will say caused his attack.

a reply to: DBCowboy

And good for you for not caring.

But

I never said anything about censorship, that's you putting words into my mouth. So to clarify for those who would also be confused, I would like people to be responsible with their freedom of speech.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: DBCowboy

And good for you for not caring.

But

I never said anything about censorship, that's you putting words into my mouth. So to clarify for those who would also be confused, I would like people to be responsible with their freedom of speech.

Nothing says free speech HAS to be responsible.

But censorship by any other name, smells. . . . well, you know.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Oh really? No such thing as responsibility at all? Well, lets just agree that we disagree and leave it at that.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Expect crickets.

That's what I got when I posted this earlier.

You posted your rhetoric before any actual information was released.

It is only rational to have push back when you are not presenting information, but rather your opinion.

//edit
I should clarify you had been posting he was guilty well before.

I posted the evidence he targeted the PP clinic thirty mins after the NYTImes article came out and people still didn't respond to that.
//edit

-FBB

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: DBCowboy

Oh really? No such thing as responsibility at all? Well, lets just agree that we disagree and leave it at that.

If you can point out in the 1st Amendment where we all have the right to responsible freedom of expression, then I will apologize.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not going to turn this thread into a debate about free speech. If you don't want understand that with this right comes responsibilities I recognize that and disagree with it. I'm not looking for you to apologize.

This is like debating about yelling fire in a crowded theater. Is that person responsible for the result?

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Expect crickets.

That's what I got when I posted this earlier.

You posted your rhetoric before any actual information was released.

It is only rational to have push back when you are not presenting information, but rather your opinion.

//edit
I should clarify you had been posting he was guilty well before.

I posted the evidence he targeted the PP clinic thirty mins after the NYTImes article came out and people still didn't respond to that.
//edit

-FBB

I posted the same news. Try again. And try clicking the link. Thank you.

ETA: Where did I say he was erm "guilty?"

a reply to: ~Lucidity

My point was that the people arguing over that fact after the article was posted had already written you off because of the established bias.

I posted the link prior to that post and it went pages without being acknowledged.

-FBB