First degree murder means you planned your actions. It wasn't an accident. It wasn't carried out in the heat of passion. It was premeditated. The guy who walked in to a church with a loaded gun, hunted down his prey and shot an unarmed man in cold blood claimed he did that to "save the lives of unborn children," so he plead not guilty to first degree murder and aggravated assault.
That's right. He is claiming that walking in to a church with a loaded weapon, shooting an unarmed man for providing a legal medical service... is not the mad actions of a lunatic. It is justifiable homicide, just like killing an armed intruder in your house before he is able to kill your child.
Sound far-fetched? Apparently not...
Unfortunately, this is not just the fevered ramblings of a diseased mind. Or at least, not his alone. It has been reported the killer is discussing this defense strategy with none other than Michael Hirsh.
Michael Hirsh, the lawyer who represented Paul Hill on appeal for killing a Florida abortion provider and his bodyguard in 1994.
Hirsh tried to use this argument then, but to no avail.
Hill was executed in 2003 after the Florida Supreme Court rejected Hirsh's argument that the judge should have allowed Hill to present to jurors his claim that the killings were justified to prevent abortions.
The Florida Supreme Court was clear that allowing such a defense would be "an invitation to lawlessness." Gee... ya think? Hirsh disputes that with the bizarre argument:
"It has been open season on unborn children for over 30 years. I think on abortionists there will be a bag limit," Hirsh said in a phone interview this week from his Kennesaw, Ga., office.
Wow. Shades of Idaho. What's next? Doctor tags? And where do we draw the line? Not all gun owners are right-wing nutjobs. Would this justify the use of deadly force to pre-empt a Republican from voting to fund the occupation of Iraq because it will "save the lives of unborn children" in Iraq? And what about former heads of state? Are they now fair game because they ordered the murders of innocent victims of torture?
Saner heads argue this defense will not pass muster because you can't invoke it unless there is an imminent threat and the victim is engaged in an illegal activity. Neither of those points pertain to this case. However, I wouldn't be quick to shrug this off as a lunatic grasping at straws.
If we have learned anything from the last few years it is this: No matter how insane or depraved an act you can imagine, the reactionary forces trying to take us back to the 19th century can always come up with something beyond your wildest imaginings.
If I told you in June that people carrying AR-15s would show up outside venues hosting the president and not get arrested, would you have believed me? If I told you in July that elected Republican officials would applaud people who got up and declared they were "right-wing terrorists" would you have believed me?
Tiller's killer would like us to believe he acted alone, but the reality is people committing these sort of acts have a network of supporters and sympathizers who enable them. Tiller's killer is no exception. The people who cheered him on are now trying to pretend they support his actions, but had nothing to do with it. That's like cheering on a guy while he rapes a girl on the pool table, but feigning innocence when he does it by saying, "I was just watching. I had nothing to do with it."
Hopefully people will start pushing back on this so supporters of these violent criminals will see there are consequences for such outrageous behavior. Otherwise, people will start taking matters into their own hands and that means a lot of bystanders are going to wind up in the cross fire. That would be an invitation to lawlessness. Is that what "pro-life" people really want? That way lies madness.
As for the shooter himself, it is worth noting that he can be executed under Kansas law. This law was reviewed a few years ago by the Supreme Court of the United States and resulted in a deadlock of 4-4. After Alito was sworn in, the Supreme Court reheard the case. This time, a 5-4 majority declared the Kansas death penalty was constitutional. How ironic.