In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Is murdered anti-choice activist a martyr?

Equal Writes

by Thúy-Lan Võ Lite

I have a few updates on the case of slain anti-abortion activist James Pouillon, who was killed in front of a school on September 11 in Owassa, Michigan.

A brief post on Jezebel informed me that two Congressmen – Reps. Dave Camp and Dale Kildee – from Pouillon’s home state introduced a resolution to honor the late protestor: House Resolution 759 (available on Camp’s website), after noting that “Jim Pouillon is mourned by his family, friends, community, and fellow defenders of the First Amendment and the unborn,” offers condolences to the victim’s family and recognizes the importance of free speech.

The resolution has been introduced amid an ongoing debate over Pouillon’s posthumous martyrization. Anti-choice leaders note that he was killed on the job, or “gunned down as he stood for life” (Operation Rescue), but it’s misleading to conclude that his victimization was a direct result of his ideology. According to Flint News, “[a]uthorities have said Harlan Drake, 33, of Owosso had a grudge against Pouillon and didn’t think that children should have to look at graphic pictures of abortion on their way to school.”

The article continues: “Shiawassee County Prosecutor Randy Colbry says he doesn’t have any information that the abortion issue was the motivation for the slaying, saying that it is not his impression that the shooting was a hate crime or politically motivated.” Keep in mind that Drake had killed another man earlier in the day based on a completely unrelated “grudge.”

Dr. James M. Pouillon – the late activist’s son – had some interesting opinions of his own, which he wrote in a blog post (via Flint) a few days after the murder. Asserting that his father “really didn’t care about aborton (sic),” he noted that “He did this [protesting] to stalk, harass, terrorize, scream at, threaten, frighten, and verbally abuse women. He had a pathologic hatred of women: his mom, my mom, everyone.”

But whether or not Pouillon, Sr. was killed for his stance or for his persistent, disrespectful methods remains up in the air; it’s definitely too soon for anti-choice leaders to galvanize support in his name.

42 thoughts on Is murdered anti-choice activist a martyr?

  3. I think the “was the shooting politically motivated” question is irrelevant. This is not comparable to Scott Roeder’s murder of Dr. Tiller. The anti-choice movement tried to dismiss him as a lone nut, but the fact remains that powerful anti-choice organizations and media had been calling, subtly or unsubtly, for someone to assassinate Dr. Tiller for decades. This is their modus operandi. They have no case for Roeder being a lone nut. Even if Drake killed Pouillon because of his political beliefs, this does not reflect on the pro-choice movement because we do not have an organized system in place that calls for the murder of anti-choice activists.

  4. Not to be nitpicky, but that would be Owosso, Michigan.

    On-topic? I’d like to second what Rebecca said. Even if the shooting was politically motivated (which, it’s been noted, the prosecutor doesn’t think it was, and the other murder perpetrated by the shooter that same day was completely unrelated to political issues of any kind), Pouillon’s shooter was a “lone nut” in a way that Scott Roeder never was.

  5. The police have also made statements that his activism does not appear to be a motivation for the murder. The murderer also killed another man that day and had planned to kill a third, but was arrested before he had the opportunity. The connection among the killings is that these were all people that the murderer had problems with. Check MLive for a lot of articles on this topic.

    I also happen to be from a nearby town, and while Pouillon didn’t deserve to be murdered, the victim’s son’s perspective concurs with what many many people have said to me personally about this man. At a small get together of family and family friends, we discussed the murders, and two of the pople there had been harassed by him, and knew of people who had to get protection orders against him.

    Personally, I feel like the conservative media was trying to make all the anti-abortion provider killings look better, by saying, hey, look, the other side murders people for their abortion views too. Unfortunately, there’s absolutely no reason to believe that is why Pouillon was killed. It only came up b/c the victim was known around town as the guy with the graphic anti-abortion signs, and becuase he was protesting at the time.

  6. Pretty typical Republicanism though. Trying to get the Congress to heap praise and legitimacy on a vicious misogynist.

  7. Even pretending that this murder was about abortion rights/access (and not a multiple murderer with random grudges), … several news articles indicated that Pouillon’s was the first recorded US murder of an anti-choice protester “on the job”.

    By contrast, since just 1993, there have been eight anti-choice murders and many more attempted murders; not to mention bombings, arson, chemical attacks, threats, and at least one instance where someone tried to crash a vehicle into a clinic.

    Yeah, I’m going to go ahead and say: even if this were anything at all like Dr. Tiller’s murder, it’s still pretty clear which side is more inclined to terrorist tactics and murders: it’s the one that claims to be on the side of “life”.

  8. Alright, I’m come right out and say it. Lets say this murder was politically motivated (which it appears wasn’t the case). So what? I never really understood this meme that every death is a tragedy. The guy devoted his life to crusading against the rights of others. I wouldn’t have gone through the effort to kill the guy, but if I sat on the jury I’d be giving strong consideration to nullification. Besides, this is the game the forced-birth lobby has been playing for a long time, depending on the civility and lawfulness of their opponents so that they could behave like animals. You have to expect that, if you decide to use violence against others as a political tactic, eventually the other side will retaliate. Fuck him, I hope he’s the beginning of a trend.

  9. “George Tiller was a mass-murder and, horrifically, he reaped what he sowed.”
    –Randall Terry

    “Lets say this murder was politically motivated… So what?… Fuck him, I hope he’s the beginning of a trend.”
    –William

    “I’m glad the fucker’s dead. I’d like a holiday celebrating *that*.
    –Joan Kelly

    Yeah, its only the right wing who enables political violence.

  10. William, no. He sounds like a deeply unsavory person, a pitiful, vicious man consumed with hate, but murdering him was totally unacceptable. I take your point that the far right plays on their oppositions civility while trampling liberties and oppressed peoples underfoot, but while that might mean we should shout more and negotiate and compromise less, in no way does it give us a right to kill them.

    You hope he’s the beginning of a trend? That right there is very, very disturbing.

  11. Manju, you commented while I was typing. I’m cringing at Joan’s and William’s comments, but I do think there’s a huge difference between a couple of people making comments on a feminist blog (albeit a widely read one) and political leaders and mainstream media pundits systematically, repeatedly using inflammatory, violent rhetoric. If Joan or William is the director of Planned Parenthood, a Congressperson, a primetime cable news host, or someone with a similar degree of power and exposure, you may have a case. I’m not excusing their words, which I object to strongly, but I think its disingenuous to suggest that their comments and the official statements of Randall Terry are equivalent in enabling violence.

  12. I find the son’s comments most interesting, as it’s something I’ve seen in more than one male anti-abortion activist — they really seem to get off on being able to scream at, harass and go after women in a socially sanctioned activity. Creeps, every last one of them.

    How do we get rid of these kinds of attitudes? (I’m not considering shooting them a solution!!) The socialization and cultural mores begin so early…

  13. “but I do think there’s a huge difference between a couple of people making comments on a feminist blog (albeit a widely read one) and political leaders and mainstream media pundits systematically, repeatedly using inflammatory, violent rhetoric.”

    Agreed, stature matters.

  14. Wow. I can’t believe what I’m reading here. People not only condoning the slaying of this man but encouraging more killing? This surely must be some sort of sick joke. Joan and William’s comments make me feel ill. I don’t believe at all with what this man was saying but I’m glad he atleast has the freedom to say it, creep or no creep. This is going to sound almost as horrible but Joan and William please don’t procreate or at the very least don’t pass on your hatred to your children. Sorry but

  15. I think its a tragedy that anyone celebrates the death of a person bcause they weren’t exactly *nice* people during their lives. As far as we know we never killed anyone but last I checked pissing someone the fuck off wasn’t a very good justification for wanting someone dead. I mean really how does it look that we rejoice when someone who claims to be pro-life is dead? We add legitimacy t ther claim that pro-choice is anti-life by celebrating death.

    The guy was obviously not a favorite and a definite misogynist and I don’t expect any outrage or angst or tears over his death even if it were politically motivated- but celebration? So what? Come on we’re the cvilize side let’s act like it and have some tact.

  17. I think a telling difference between the murder of Dr. Tiller and that of this individual is that the murder of Dr. Tiller, in addition to being planned for years and attempted more than once, was specifically designed to stop abortion. Dr. Tiller’s being assassinated (yes, I use that word because his killing was definitely political) not only cut off a major point of abortion access in Kansas/the Midwest, but it also was intended to send a very specific message to other providers and potential future providers: This is what you can expect if you perform abortions. The killing of this anti-choice activist (I’d use his name, but I can’t remember it and am using my cell phone to make this post) was not intended to deliver a message to anti-choice activists, or at least it doesn’t appear to have been because his motive for the three unrelated shootings seems to be personal grudges, not an effort to silence those who oppose abortion. (If there was a message, it appears to be, this is what you can expect if you piss this guy off.) Also, though killing an activist does make a statement/send a message (intentionaly or not), while killing Dr. Tiller cut off access to his services, killing an anti-choice activist does not impede a woman’s ability to choose not to have an abortion. In fact, it’s pretty darn hard to impede that at all.

  19. Being glad for random acts of justice (woman hating/harming fucker is dead, without anyone except another fucker having to have lifted a finger or gone against a conscience) is not the same as enabling or promoting violence.

    I’m supposed to pretend to have different feelings – and I am talking about my feelings, not anything even close to an action in the world – I’m supposed to pretend to have different feelings so that…what? People who already hate me will stop hating me? Stop wanting people like me dead? Stop killing people like me? Fuck that. I say again – I’m glad that fucker’s dead, and I consider all attempts to shame or quiet that *feeling* to be anti-female.

    And I will add this, so that we’re even clearer – I care little about presenting a face of morale-high-ground-ness when it comes to this shit. And that goes for presenting that face to “the opposition” and to supposed same-siders alike.

    I would actually love it if the population of people who seek to murder and enslave women via terrorizing us out of access to safe abortions ALL became afraid that their terrorist tactics could land them on a mortuary slab. I’m not wasting my time hoping, planning, or advocating for that, as it will clearly never happen. But I won’t pretend, in a liberal feminist space or anywhere else, not to be delighted by the prospect.

    The only sad part about this case is that it *wasn’t* politically motivated.

  21. You hope he’s the beginning of a trend? That right there is very, very disturbing.

    You’re (as well as the others who took note), it is. I was speaking from a place of anger and let my own personal shit get in the way. While I’m a firm believer in self defense, this clearly wasn’t the case. I won’t mourn him, and I don’t think his death is a tragedy, but there is a line and I let myself cross it. There is a difference between refusing to buy into the lie that a bad man was somehow good because he’s dead and advocating terrorism. Perhaps if Pouillon had been a different man, I’d be defending my statement, but he wasn’t and I simply can’t. I was out of line.

  22. I am shocked to read this shit at a feminist blog. We are supposed to be better than this. If this were Alas, a Blog or Shakesville Joan would be banned for her despicable pro-terrorism comments.

    I am absolutely ashamed right now.

  23. Uh, yeah. I’m just seeing those comments now. Joan and William, you two are awesome commenters and I usually really appreciate your contributions. But no deserves to be killed for their views, even when those views are abhorrent. Any other “he deserves to die” commentary will be deleted.

  26. Jill – I appreciate your comment. I never said he deserved to be killed for his views, or that anyone else did either. People being uncomfortable with my emotions regarding something I had nothing to do with, did not promote, have not promoted, am not promoting – that is a specific thing that anybody could have engaged with. “I’m uncomfortable that you have these feelings, and this is why.” Clearly that’s not going to happen. I still don’t think it’s fair to characterize my comments as advocating violence against people for their views. Everything I said above – which I understand nobody else here agrees with and I will not continue to argue it – it is about woman-hating people’s actions, not their mere views.

    K, you *should* be ashamed. Your call for me to be banned and you calling me pro-terrorism is dishonest and self-serving. You have a right to express your opinions just as I do. You do not have a right to pretend I’ve said things I haven’t just so you can feel morally superior to me.

  27. But no deserves to be killed for their views, even when those views are abhorrent.

    I already admitted I was out of line, but I think there is still something important here that is worth exploring. While Pouillon is not a good case to conceptualize this question, I think a lot of the responses along the lines of “he deserved to die” point to something that the pro-choice movement hasn’t really grappled with yet: at what point does someone’s opinion and activism, directly and openly aimed at tyrannizing others through violence, move so far from civil discourse that self-defense is an issue? This is something of a special issue for the pro-choice movement because we’ve discovered that the government simply isn’t willing to take action to properly enforce laws against the kind of domestic terrorism the forced-birth lobby is so attached to.

    I agree that no one deserves to die because of their beliefs, but I don’t think anyone here really thinks that forced-birth activists deserve to live in fear because of a matter of opinion. Speaking for myself, I think that there are certainly some members of the forced-birth lobby who deserve a physical response because of their actions. Pouillon didn’t deserve to die, but at the same time he and his actions are emblematic of a movement which has traded in violence, intimidation, and shock for over a generation. Oftentimes they have enjoyed the protection and approval of the State, sometimes they have even been the State themselves. Their stated goal is to violate human rights, their tactics are almost exclusively violent (be it directly, interpersonally, or through the collective action of legislation which would bring men with badges and guns into play). Moreover the entire movement is based in an attempt to establish the tenets of a religion as law over the objections of both science and legal precedent. At what point do we stop turning the other cheek and defend ourselves?

  28. at what point does someone’s opinion and activism, directly and openly aimed at tyrannizing others through violence, move so far from civil discourse that self-defense is an issue?

    Sure, there’s a point, and I’d say that it comes when anti-choice activists are physically threatening the well-being of others. The murdered protester — who was protesting at a school and not a clinic, and who, as far as I know, wasn’t physically threatening any women seeking abortions — doesn’t fit the bill.

    I don’t agree that one protesting to represent a violent movement deserves violence. I don’t think white supremacist protesters — definitely representatives of a violent movement — deserve to be killed or physically assaulted for protesting, no matter how disgusting I find them. Ditto for anti-choice activists.

  29. Jill – I appreciate your comment. I never said he deserved to be killed for his views, or that anyone else did either. People being uncomfortable with my emotions regarding something I had nothing to do with, did not promote, have not promoted, am not promoting – that is a specific thing that anybody could have engaged with. “I’m uncomfortable that you have these feelings, and this is why.” Clearly that’s not going to happen. I still don’t think it’s fair to characterize my comments as advocating violence against people for their views. Everything I said above – which I understand nobody else here agrees with and I will not continue to argue it – it is about woman-hating people’s actions, not their mere views.

    Joan, that’s fair. I was reading your comment, William’s comment and the replies to them as a block, and wasn’t as careful as I should have been. Apologies for mischaracterizing what you said.

    I wonder, though, which “actions” we’re talking about. I realize your feelings are yours and mine are mine and I don’t try to change yours, but do we just mean protesting or marching as “actions”? Do we want people to attend anti-choice rallies and marches and be afraid? Because I don’t. I don’t like them, and I want them to feel like they’re socially marginalized and advocating a fringe position; I certainly want them to feel like if they do go out and march and protest, they’ll be glared at and shouted at and there will be counter-protests. I want them to feel unpopular. But I don’t want them to feel unsafe. For me, there’s a big line there.

    That said, the people who shoot doctors or commit acts of violence against women? I have less of a problem with them fearing that one of the people they’re attacking is going to defend themselves.

  30. Actually bill… pro-lifers are trying to take advantage of legal precedent. Blackmun said that if the personhood of the fetus could be established, the right to abortion would collapse. It’s a precedent. If you’d advocate saying that personhood amendments are unconstitutional, it is you who is trying to establish your position over legal precedent.

    Oh, and say that theres a woman who doesn’t get around to having an abortion until after viability, or well after the first trimester. Would you suggest we force her to give birth? Are people who oppose elective late term abortions “pro-forced birthers”?

    Also, where does valuing human beings over animals start being religion? We kill dogs but protect babies… isn’t this religion? You’re just saying “at whatever arbitrary point I happen to think that equal rights for our children should stop… anything beyond that is religion! RELIGION, I tell you!”

    You’re a piece of work. Don’t get mad at pro-lifers just because what you believe makes absolutely no sense at all.

  31. William – thank you for articulating everything I am feeling about self-defense and its possible meanings, and problems, in this context.

    Jill – again, thanks for responding.

    When I first heard about this story, what I felt was basically a shrug. Not a saintly feeling for me to have, but neither are a bunch of other regular feelings I have.

    When I read this post and what his son said about him – that he had a pathological hatred for all women, and liked to terrorize and threaten and verbally abuse as many women as possible, including his wife and mother – that changed my feelings from apathy to gladness. Terrorizing, threatening, and verbally abusing women is not merely an expression of views.

    It is hard for me to believe that someone with that behavior, and who another commenter claims to know people he harrassed, and people who’ve gotten orders of protection on him – to believe that he kept his actions to “only” terrorizing and threatening and verbally abusing is a stretch in my view.

    These not-sorry-about-what-happened-to-him feelings I have are not about someone attending a protest march and being gunned down for his beliefs. To answer your question directly – no, I don’t want people anywhere, any time, to fear violence for the mere expression of beliefs. I don’t actually even want people to be yelled at and given the stink eye, but I won’t be showing up at events to prevent you or anyone else from doing that either.

    But this particular person has sounded like a threat to female people in everything I’ve seen written about him. It does not feel to me like being glad he’s dead is equivalent to wishing harm on anyone who is not a threat to female people. I get it that this feeling is wholly lacking in compassion for another human, and that this aspect is what bothers people, and I’m not actually arguing that it shouldn’t bother anyone else. But even that – my lack of compassion – is not something I’m doing to anybody, including this dead man or anyone like him. The fact that there are folks lacking in compassion whose lack propels them to action – oh, I don’t know, say, like THIS FUCKING GUY – that naturally makes any lack of compassion an uneasy phenomenon to encounter in another person. I feel like those are legitimate things to talk about though, not things to shy away from.

  32. “We kill dogs but protect babies”

    What in billy blue blazes are you even talking about?

    Also, yes, anyone who would force a woman to give birth when she doesn’t want to is a forced-birther. No amount of “valuing” viable fetuses over women makes it anything else. Your distaste for later term abortions does not make it anything else. Believing there’s a good reason for forcing a woman to give birth does not make it anythign else. So. Stick that in your dog killing pipe and smoke it.

  33. That’s a good point, Joan — when I made my comment I wasn’t looking at the totality of the circumstances here, just the fact that he was a protester and was ostensibly killed because the killer didn’t like the signs he was holding. I think there’s a big line, at least for me, between thinking “It’s probably good thing for societyt that this guy just got taken out of it” and “I want anti-choice people to live in fear.” (I realize you were not saying the latter).

  34. Jill – you know what, though, to be fair, it’s not exactly easy to see the distinction I’m making now, in some of what I said in my second angry comment:

    “I would actually love it if the population of people who seek to murder and enslave women via terrorizing us out of access to safe abortions ALL became afraid that their terrorist tactics could land them on a mortuary slab.”

    Not all anti-choice people are out there terrorizing women on the ground, and I don’t have the same feelings about those who are not as I do towards this dead man.

    But I would argue that all who seek to make abortions difficult or unavailable for any woman are on the side of our deaths and enslavement. I don’t want voters and lawmakers to be murdered. I do, however, find those who would vote for the deaths and enslavement of women – they are threatening to women. And the fact that some of those who are not on the ground with threats at clinics (or schools) would nonetheless seek to “honor” such a person as this dead man via legislature…it’s fairer to say that I want all such efforts to stop, and the threats of others towards female people does bring out the worst in me at times.

  35. Your distaste for later term abortions does not make it anything else.

    this is particularly disturbing to me. do you actually think that the reason that people are opposed to late term abortions is because their “icky”? thats a vile thing to think. we just think that all of our children should have the same rights that we have – as far as i’m concerned, there’s no difference between a late-term abortion and an abortion that takes place at five weeks.

    its also silly to call bans on abortion “forced” pregnancy. pregnancy is a natural process. would you call bans on forced organ donation “forced” organ failure? no you would not. this is because organ failure is a natural process, and allowing forced organ donation would infringe on the rights of others. it is linguistically absurd in excelsis to refer to prohibitions on the interference with natural processes “forced” {insert natural process here}.

  36. “Oh, and say that theres a woman who doesn’t get around to having an abortion until after viability, or well after the first trimester. Would you suggest we force her to give birth? Are people who oppose elective late term abortions “pro-forced birthers”?”

    Strawman. Jaysus. the vast majority of abortions are performed in the FIRST TRIMESTER–the later ones usually are needed because of medical necessity (forced-birth policies put a couple of my friends in very dire physical peril thankyouverymuch). It’s not that women “don’t get around” to getting an abortion past the first trimester, they either run into medical problems and have to get one or, in some cases, wanted one in the first trimester but needed to get to an inaccessible clinic (cross state lines, go through waiting periods, etc.) and/or deal with a judge to decide if it’s okay (either that or tell her parents and get the shit kicked out of her).

    Your precious policies have endangered women who have miscarried–we often can’t even get the necessary D&X and so have a damn good chance of going septic after. Your precious policies have forced women to birth stillborn babies and <a href="http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2004/womanandherdoctor.asp"add to their trauma (because ZOMG! partial birth abortion! It’s BAAAAD.)

    Not that the likes of you care. You’ll protect fetuses but fuck over women.

  37. john jay – abortion is also a natural process. happens spontaneously all the time. death, itself, is in fact a natural process. your willful muddling of what the fuck’s being talked about here is, however, not particularly natural in my experience.

    I never said that I think people are opposed to late term abortions because it’s icky. But for the record, such a thing would be the least of the vileness that goes on in my head, so good luck with the attempt to shame on that front.

    Requiring someone to give birth, by preventing her from avoiding it when she wants to, is forced birthing. Again, whatever woman-hating morality you have that constructs such force as good and just is nonetheless a separate subject from whether forcing women to give birth when they don’t want to is forced birthing.

    I do feel bad sparring with you now, though, as I’m not at all convinced that you are capable of sensibly defending yourself. Which makes me end up feeling mean. So I’ll try to move on now.

  38. Hey “John Jay,” you know what we really don’t like here? People who are banned and then come back and try to post under a different name. Pretty sure Lauren banned you when you were writing under the name Austin. Now please quit the sock-puppeting.

  39. Sure, there’s a point, and I’d say that it comes when anti-choice activists are physically threatening the well-being of others. The murdered protester — who was protesting at a school and not a clinic, and who, as far as I know, wasn’t physically threatening any women seeking abortions — doesn’t fit the bill.

    I don’t agree that one protesting to represent a violent movement deserves violence. I don’t think white supremacist protesters — definitely representatives of a violent movement — deserve to be killed or physically assaulted for protesting, no matter how disgusting I find them. Ditto for anti-choice activists.

    I agree, Pouillon certainly doesn’t fit the bill, which is why I was out of line with my initial comment. On an emotional level, I don’t think I’d be able to see his death as a tragedy or muster much in the way of loss, but thats a personal response that is on me and ought to be different my more general orientation to the issue. I also don’t think that individuals who are merely protesting in favor of a position I find repugnant ought to be subjected to violence; you’re absolutely right that that is a very dangerous road to go down.

    The problem, for me at least, is that the forced birth lobby has worked very hard to ensure that the abortion debate takes place in an environment in which one side cannot ever feel safe. This isn’t just because a clinic gets bombed or a doctor gets shot periodically, but because those who do not engage in overt acts of extreme violence both encourage and use the rare instances of extreme violence in order to continue and maximize the trauma experienced. One does not have to shoot a doctor to participate in the use of the act, one can put a red X over their face on a wanted poster, one can show up at a clinic and start screaming knowing that everyone inside is going to wonder if you’re carrying a gun.

    In short, the forced birth lobby behaves like a domestic abuser. There doesn’t need to be an incident of severe violence every day for the fear to develop and be manipulated. Instead, the most obvious violence punctuates a broader trauma. It encourages a hyperawareness, a sense of fear, a desire to avoid being hurt. It uses the language of interpersonal violence (aggression, intimidation, threats, intimation) to keep violence in the mind of it’s victims at all times. People like Pouillon and Terry participate in the cycle of violence and abuse by being the every day abusers who deepen the trauma through it’s constant symbolic repetition, who remind their victims that they could be harmed at any time, that they have no power.

    I’m not saying that their participation in this conscious and systematic abuse means that forced-birth activists deserve to die, but I do think that these things exist on a continuum. There is an entire range of actions and behaviors which lie between passive opposition to abortion and shooting a doctor. I think most would agree that the former ought to face nothing more than social pressure (if even that) while the latter would likely merit a response of violent force (depending on the details of the situation, of course), but at what point does that change happen?

    I think its worth discussing what the line is, or perhaps more accurately when the line begins to blur. These activists do often “commit acts of violence against women,” though these acts are often highly disguised. Violence isn’t just a bullet or a bomb or a beating, it can just as easily be the threat of those things, or the surge of a mob, or a voice shouting “baby killer” which leaves no doubt as to the speaker’s aggression. Pouillon likely wasn’t over any lines, but I think grappling with the issue of where lines might fall is something we’ll have to do eventually. After all, we can’t depend on the state to not be the aggressor, much less for it to act as a defender; and people like Randall Terry are still doing their best to wind up another Scott Roeder.

  40. “I never said he deserved to be killed for his views, or that anyone else did either.”

    Then why did you refer to his murder as a “random act of justice?” It’s not justice if he didn’t deserve it.

  41. K, I do consider it a random act of the universe’s justice that someone who was taking the ACTIONS that fucker was taking got killed by another fucker. Which is what I’ve said a couple of times now, including in the first comment I left. If you wish to continue to try to make this about me advocating murder, so that you can feel righteous in your previous shame spiral, have at it. But you’ll get no help from me.

  42. Joan, I am not at all trying to proclaim righteousness or shame you. I had legitimate issues with what you said. I still think you are drawing distinctions where none exist, but if you’re quitting the argument, I guess there’s no sense in me continuing on.

Comments are currently closed.