(no subject)

[neadods]

The good news: My review of Bang-Bang-a-Boom is up at Unreality SF
The only thing that stops Bang-Bang-a-Boom! from being completely hilarious is that it tries too hard to be funny. The jokes aren't just delivered, they're hammered home...

The bad news: ... no, if I start ranting about how the murder of Dr. Tiller is trying to spin walking into the man's church and blowing him away as "voluntary manslaughter" (he's already been told "justifiable homicide" won't work) then I'm just going to make my headache worse and I don't need that.

Comments

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

Not sure what this link:

http://neadods.livejournal.com/during%20the%20self-parody%20season

is for - but USF it ain't!

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Whoops! Fixed.

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

Yays!

[gonzai55.livejournal.com]

No worries - I already ranted for you earlier today.

I hope those orange vests are bulletproof, and I hope even more that you don't need bulletproof.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Roe v Wade and now this. The next couple of Saturdays are going to be so much fun. /sarcasm

[ladyfox7oaks.livejournal.com]

Yeah, we need to think happier thoughts, both of us... Cause I don't need to be grinding my teeth like this, this early in the morning.

[fabricdragon.livejournal.com]

sadly, if. as i have read.. the definition of voluntary manslaughter is
"honestly held, if unreasonable" belief that this was needed to protect a life......

then he may well qualify.

i will say that in MY opinion, if thats the law.... then they have a problem with the underlying law.......(definition of voluntary manslaughter)

[gonzai55.livejournal.com]

This is Kansas we're talking about. They haven't accepted evolution yet. Expecting them to have sensible laws may be too much for them.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

That's the thing - he probably does qualify, considering that he's already tried justifiable homicide.

But as many people are pointing out, there are plenty of whackaloon "honestly held, if unreasonable" beliefs out there, so allowing that one to go through would basically be flushing criminal law down the drain and reducing any homicide to a 5-year slap on the wrist.

[ladyfox7oaks.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that basically makes it "Well sor, He needed killin'..." and doesn't THAT just conjure up images!

[fabricdragon.livejournal.com]

i agree with you.

there are TONS of "honestly held, if unreasonable" beliefs that could be used to "justify lethal force" ... and i really have to wonder how the law has held on this long, when its CLEARLY a dangerous precedent..

how about if you believe its inevitable that there will be a race war? or that (insert group here) is part of a conspiracy to kill/destroy (insert my group here)

it seems to ME that this would do better with an insanity defense.. or that they need a DIFFERENT defense, or wider sentancing guidelines, or something........ for that kind of law.

shakes head
i think it may be allowed to go through..... but that they dmn well better get to work changing the law, whether it does.. or doesnt work IN THIS CASE.... because now that its been publicized?
it will be used again
and again
untl its fixed

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I've heard a couple of people crossing their fingers that this *is* supposed to be the case that fixes the law.

The defense doesn't appear to want the insanity defense because this is supposed to REALLY be about the legality of Roe v Wade. The judge has at least disallowed that, or said he will.

[flaviarassen.livejournal.com]

I think the worst irony is that if someone were to then
kill HIM to protect future abortion doctors, the same
defense would be thrown out - even tho' there's more
logic behind that scenario.