Doctor Shot to Death in 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,” said Brent Allred, a police captain, who said that the FBI and state police had been called to the scene. By noon, few parishioners remained at the church, a modern, red brick facility that seats about 500 people. Police cars surrounded the building.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us/01tiller.html

Wonder if he will be charged under federal law or Kansas law?

I get pretty confused on state v federal for some of this stuff.

Murder 1, I hope. :mad:

I know they won't be held responsible, but if they get dragged 'down to the station for questioning' every time one of their listener/followers takes up their call for action, maybe they will learn the value of self monitoring the garbage they spew.

rush
beck
Coulter
Malkin
savage Weiner

for starters

in this country.

i'd lose my job as a cop if i brought somebody in for questioning, for exercising their free speech.

can we please not start throwing away constitutional protections?

tia

can we please not start throwing away constitutional protections?
+1

that pointed out threats from right wing extremists? Looks like she was correct. Ya think we're going to be hearing about that or are we going to get a bunch of crazy loner stuff?????

we are now moving to take over their main goal - the SCOTUS. I also think that if any backlash is seen against the banks it will come from rw because they tend to believe in violent means to settle arguments - Iraq?

The most well known abortion doctor on the planet. RIP..

:shrug:

I thought churches were no-gun zones? Did he just ignore the signs?

I haven't seen anyone attack the 2nd amendment over this so why is is you are bringing this out? If someone uses it to talk about how evil guns are, then I could see saying this. When we come out without provocation and make statements like this, we show that we are one track minds.

As I said to Merchant Marine, no one is talking about guns here. They are talking about a right wing crazy who attacked a doctor who performs abortions. This is without a doubt political. It is about right wing crazies believing that they can kill someone with whom they have political or "moral" disagreements. It isn't about guns unless we make it so by coming out preemptively to make it about guns. I don't even know why it is in the gun forum.

Given this posters history and the given forum it is clear.

I just tend to think that we can make way better arguments than bringing out the sarcasm without any indication about the tragedy that this person was killed in a church by a supposed "pro-life" idiot.

We have to be better than that though.

I will always defend the right to own and carry. I will defend the right to self defense. I can't have a "low road" mentality though. Still on your side, just don't agree with the tactics Dave.

Can't say I really care for him but that bit was funny.

David

Dane Cook? We'll have to part company their too. I don't find him funny...I watched about 10 minutes of a show and changed the channel. I can't understand how he is so famous.

Anyway, truce. My point of view is that people who are against the right to own firearms, are already on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and they often behave reprehensibly. I'd rather be reasonable and avoid looking like the other side often does.

Peace!:toast:

It has everything to do with making it an issue about guns.

In fairness, we have some that post every single 'justifiable homicide' or defensive gun use as well, so I guess it cuts both ways. I would like both sides to stop. Anecdotes are useless at best, and offensive in some cases. (Some of Tiller's loved ones may be members of, or readers of DU, for instance.

There may, ultimately, be some valid point to a thread related to this incident, in this folder, if it turned out the shooter was any number of things, such as mentally unstable, or adjudicated not mentally competent, and he got a gun anyway, or something like that. But as yet, you are correct, it does not belong here.

The problem I have with single statements attacking a point of view is that they fail to acknowledge the underlying tragedy. The man was killed because he supported the right of women to choice about their reproductive health. Some ideologue felt it was their right to murder him. That is the problem, not the tool with which he chose to murder him. Yet, the response is "don't mess with guns". Yes, don't mess with them, and stop using tragedies to interfere with the rights of responsible law abiding people, but also, we need to acknowledge that this is a tragedy.

I don't support abortions (in general), but nothing gives a person the right to murder someone due to a philosophical disagreement.

I hope they catch the murderer and the justice system does its job.

Given his past, I would like to know the exact circumstances that armed him and allowed him into a church to kill a doctor.

We have to face it -- if someone wants a gun badly enough, he/she will get it. Whether it means stealing it, getting someone with a clean record to buy it, or otherwise procuring it, it can't be stopped, short of banning them all. (And even then, only the law-abiding would dutifully turn them in...) We need to attack the ideology of hate behind the act that caused this tragedy, not the tool that merely enabled it.

depends on the state. Here in WA, churches are not singled out.

Even if it were, would it have stopped this lunatic from smuggling a gun into said "gun-free" zone and striking regardless? I highly doubt it. Someone intent on murder isn't exactly going to be concerned with breaking other rules/laws while he's at it.