It's also curious that it hasn't receievd much media attention as well.

Even more curious is why this paper chooses to fan the flames by assuming that the killing was perpetrated for political reasons. No evidence has been given to associate the murderer with a pro-choice agenda, unlike the murder of Dr. Tiller.

Pouillon was killed for his beliefs. The shooter had a problem with Pouillon's tactics. To say "we don't know the reason" is nonsense. The abortion industry is full of lies, double-speak, and excuses. There is no excuse for them to overlook this killing.

Thanks for noticing! My best response to my friend Rod would be from one of the comments on my post: "Qui tacet consentire videtur. Silence gives consent." And given the high-volume craziness that passes for discourse too often these days, I suggest it behooves the rest of us to make the point as often as is even slightly relevant that there really are lines that cannot be crossed.

There's no indication that the goober who shot the anti-abortion guy had an opinion about abortion either way, or any other political leanings, for that matter.

Seems the shooter was just a gun-nut biker type who was in a bad mood and out to shoot somebody.

It's too bad the men were shot, but there was no political agenda involved, so no special condemnation is necessary--just the general condemnation one might make for any senseless slaying.

"prosecutors say Drake had been irritated by Pouillon’s protests"

Sentient1 - certainly sounds like a good indicator of the reason to me.

It's a media blackout along with the Van Jones story and the 912 march on Washington this past weekend. Face it, the fourth estate has been taken over and is no longer. what we now have are government mouthpieces. Thank Life, Liberty! and

Was it murder, or justifiable homicide?

If he killed because he was angry about the gory sign, then it's murder.

It's only justifiable homicide if you kill a right-to-lifer FOR BEING A RIGHT-TO-LIFER, not for holding a gory sign.

We must continue waiting for counterterror against right-to-lifers.

Owosso Police Lt. Michael Compeau told reporters from The Detroit News that Drake didn't have strong feelings about abortion one way or the other. "Mr. Drake did not believe children should view the graphic material on the signs Mr. Pouillon carried."

Perhaps because there is no substantiation that this was politically motivated! The family says it wasn't and only unnamed authorities and those with a political agenda themselves are suggesting that it was.

Or perhaps becauset here is no systematic effort by pro-choice organizations to harass, stalk and assault those who are anti-abortion.

Mary, you're an idiot.

Kelsey: You call that a comment? Pure ad hominem mockery with no substance? And the Baltimore Sun publishes it? This isn't discourse, this is a snapshot of the coarsening of society by those who fight to coarsen it.

You can guarantee that, had the murdered been pro-"choice"/pro-abortion, the ones against us pro-lifers would have verbally blamed each of us and made a HUGE deal with both media and investigations. How dare we ask the same?! It also would have been a long drawn out ordeal used to fan the flames to call us "haters" and to ask for more legislation against us! Who cares how gory the sign? Have you SEEN an actual abortion? And the same who condemn the sign allow their children on the internet w/o monitoring or allow them to play games and watch movies w/ even worse!!!

Christina: This nut had a three-man hit-list, was unloading random lunatic grudges, and was being treated for psych problems. It also was a drive-by; he lived just a few blocks from the school; and he didn't stalk the protester at his home, church, or place of business -- as doctor-killers have done -- and make "political" statements thereafter. For all we know, this nut might've shot someone who displayed equally gruesome PRO-CHOICE photos -- which do exist! (And have you SEEN the results of desperately-done backroom or self-abortions, or of what happens when women have no choices at all? Or do you lose interest when Born People are involved?)
And please give solid proof that "the same" parents who condemn grisly anti-abortion-porn photos don't care if their kids look at online garbage. That crazy claim frosts the cake -- and it sends your credibility right out the window.

It must be embarrassing for anti-abortion activists to have all the murderers on their side of the debate.

But if they're hoping Harlan Drake is some sort of pro-choice-activist equivalent, they're dreaming. He's nothing more than a mentally unstable, grudge-bearing, grisly-photo-hating man who owned a gun.

"It must be embarrassing for anti-abortion activists to have all the murderers on their side of the debate."

It must be blissful to be so naïve. Sounds like someone can’t accept the truth that they are on the same side as a murder. Newsflash you were always on the side of murder by supporting the termination of life.

Sorry to bust your bubble - Abortion is murder.

While his murder is unacceptable (as is the murder of any human being), Mr. Pouillon's tactics were despicable.

Oh, Kelsey, that's exactly the kind of response I would expect from a pro-abort. That's the best you can do? Please. I've got two graduate degrees, have been studying this issue for 15 years, and my SAT scores and GPA indicate that I am not, in fact, an "idiot." James Pouillon was obviously killed for his beliefs, and the pro-abortion advocates refuse to acknowledge it. Why? Why are abortion advocates so afraid of the truth? And why must you resort to name-calling without basing any argument in fact and reason? I am pro life because I can read biology. Obviously you are pro-abortion because it most likely gets you laid.

"Mr. Pouillon's tactics were despicable."

Why for showing abortion for what it is? That's the problem with pro abortion folks you don't want to look at the end result of what you advocate.

Anonymous wrote: Newsflash you were always on the side of murder by supporting the termination of life. Sorry to bust your bubble - Abortion is murder.

No, abortion isn't murder. If you want it to be murder, you'll have to change the Constitution to make zygotes/embryos/fetuses independent legal persons. Good luck with that.

seems pretty clear that Pouillon was an abrasive Jerk that some depressed psycho added to his hit-list for the day and the prosecutor doesn't think it had anything to do with his Anti-choice protests. The guy went on to kill a gravel-pit owner at the pit and had a real estate agent on his to-kill list.

Life begins at the first independent breath, so abortion is not murder.

And nobody is "Pro-Abortion". Pro-Choice is about having the freedom to do the right thing. Sometimes abortion is the right thing - many times its not.

"Pro-Life" is a false label when you are willing to murder to force your beliefs on others. Use "Anti-Choice."

(SAT and GPA only indicate your ability to regurgitate information fed to you, not an ability to think and reason on your own)

No, abortion isn't murder. If you want it to be murder, you'll have to change the Constitution"

Why I don't recall seeing a right to abort anywhere in the Constitution. The Supreme Court illegally created it. All it would take is for the court to realize that and reverse the original decision. There was never a valid legal reason for the original decision.

Regardless of how much you wish to deny it Abortion is in fact murder. It’s the termination of a distinctly separate life.

To Anonymous:

You forgot to quote the last part of my sentence, which I've italicized: If you want (abortion) to be murder, you'll have to change the Constitution to make zygotes/embryos/fetuses independent legal persons.

Do you really want them to be legal persons, meaning independent citizens?

For starters, a citizen-embryo would need to be registered with the government, just like a newborn child is, don't you think?

Imagine the new bureacracy that would entail -- every pregnancy registered, every miscarriage investigated as a possible abortion.

To Anonymous:

You forgot the last part of my sentence. It reads, "No, abortion isn't murder. If you want it to be murder, you'll have to change the Constitution to make zygotes/embryos/fetuses independent legal persons."

You missed my point, or ignored it.

But if you want to believe they're legal persons or that zygotes/embryos/fetuses have rights as independent persons under the Constitution, go right ahead. Who could possibly stop you?

"For starters, a citizen-embryo would need to be registered with the government, just like a newborn child is, don't you think? "

Ignoring the fact that registration isn't constitutionally required a second. Why would it add anything? All you are doing is moving it forward from when it occurs now. Oh that's right the investigations. That's certainly a good reason to allow abortion so we don't have worry about those pesky rights we would be giving unborn children. It is so much easier when we can treat them like an organ.

You know some states already give some rights to unborn. I've always struggled with how someone can be charged with fetal homicide of an unborn child dies when the mother can decide at a whim to do the same thing.

To: Krisipuu

I got the point you were trying to make. I just dismissed it.

What is an zygotes/embryos/fetuses before birth? It’s not an organ. It isn’t part of the woman’s body. How does the act of birth make any difference? It is in fact already distinctly different entity. As such it should have rights under the constitution. What amazes me is we give animals more rights right now. I think the correct answer is that you want to believe it isn’t an independent person to rationalize giving someone the right to terminate it’s life.

Anonymous wrote "It is in fact already distinctly different entity."

But it's a "different entity" totally dependent on a born and breathing American citizen.

What if your kidney were a perfect match for a person who would certainly die without it?

Should the law force you to donate your kidney -- no matter the potential cost to your health, life, or family and personal circumstances?

And how would you like being told that your health, life, or family and personal circumstances don't count at all, I'll bet you'd take exception to that, wouldn't you?

I am sick of the innocence speech. Any one who would like to experience a man taunting your children. Harrasing the innocent. Walking in your childrens parades with mutilated baby signs. Calling your children baby killers despite there pro-life beliefs please let the city of Owosso know where you are. We have a ton of them coming in looking to share the right to look like an ass, teach our children to be disrepectful, and ineffective communication skills knocking down our doors and haunting our schools. A student did not kill this menace to society!! Please leave and stop breeding the hate that brough this crime to our community in the first place.

"But it's a "different entity" totally dependent on a born and breathing American citizen."

How does that make it any different from a new born? Aren't they also dependent on a breathing American citizen?

The kidney is an organ belonging the person it’s in. An unborn child is a different person. The two aren’t comparable.

"And how would you like being told that your health, life, or family and personal circumstances don't count at all, I'll bet you'd take exception to that, wouldn't you?"

Not if it was to protect the life of another person. As I said my or your rights end when they violate someone else's especially their right to live.

In answer to my question about your health, life, or family and personal circumstances wouldn't count if the government had the power to force you to donate your kidney to a dying man, you wrote Not if it was to protect the life of another person. As I said my or your rights end when they violate someone else's especially their right to live.

That’s very big of you, Anonymous, but I’ll bet most of your fellow conservatives might balk at losing their right to own and control their very lives and bodies.

Might remind them of Mao and Hitler.

To Anonymous:

In answer to my question about your health, life, or family and personal circumstances wouldn't count if the government had the power to force you to donate your kidney to a dying man, you wrote Not if it was to protect the life of another person. As I said my or your rights end when they violate someone else's especially their right to live.

That’s very big of you, Anonymous, but I’ll bet most of your fellow conservatives might balk at losing their right to own and control their very lives and bodies.

Might remind them of Mao and Hitler.

I believe as far as "splitting hairs" is concerned, (kidney vs fetus), our "progressive culture" has been dumbed down to REAL issues concerning the livelihood of our species. Now i'm no "talking head" or far right "extremist" ... I'm just stating the fundamental reality of our times. Being frank, we are not cave men any longer, how ever I think we would be WAY better off by using some caveman logic. VALUE THE SPECIES. Protect the life of the species. Its basic math. If we want to move forward as humans, sure be evolutionary, chase the mars landing, find a cure for cancer, GIVES RIGHTS TO EVERYONE, but RESPECT the BASICS!... Its' black and white. A NO-BRAINER. Arguing the point is ridiculous and is for the minds of the bitter and agitated. Look at the OBJECTIVE. My opinion is subjective of course and that's the beauty of free will and speech, however LIFE is objective. I mean come on, we are all here blogging right?

Peace and Love,

Human Citizen.

. Krisipuu I'm not sure what point you’re trying to make other than insult. Those supporting abortion love to make this a rights issue. No one is saying how to control anyone’s life or body. What is being said is you can't control another’s. Interesting comment didn't Mao and Hitler force women to have abortions?

GRAYWALKER:

"Pro-Choice is about having the freedom to do the right thing. Sometimes abortion is the right thing - many times its not".

TRUE FREEDOM = The ability to do what is RIGHT and JUST... freely. Doing right then makes us free. Being free to choose right or wrong is proof in the sense that in choosing to do WRONG we are bound. Bound in a state of knowing in our conscience that we are not "free" from guilt, remorse, or what-have-you, etc etc. True Freedom is not subjective and everyone has felt at one time or another "trapped" by a wrong decision. Therefore, being "pro-choice" is subjective and what I choose is RIGHT or WRONG according to me. Terminating the natural birthing process is then WRONG because a birth is GOOD by nature. We are not opting for FREEDOM when we choose wrongly. It's not sometimes its good and sometimes it's bad. Why I can't kill people at will I guess i will never know... (maybe sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad... ) but I do because it's wrong.

choosing to do RIGHT is freedom in itself. It is instilled into our very being. Truth is the birth of a newborn... the natural course of things... it is not "Doing what ever I like because I can..."

Cheers Mate, I hope this helps you :)