Terrorism

Turns Out That Planned Parenthood Shooter is Anti-Abortion "Warrior For Babies"

Not just another "transgendered leftist activist."

|

Remember all the mystery surrounding the actions of Robert Dear, who killed three people in late November while shooting up the Planned Parenthood facility in Colorardo Springs? Was he an anti-abortion zealot or just another "transgendered leftist activist"?

Well, it's decidely the former, with a healthy helping of batshit crazy. From the Denver Post's account of Dear's first day in court:

Less than four minutes into the hearing, Dear interrupted his attorney, public defender Daniel King. King, who was part of the team that represented Aurora theater shooter James Holmes, did not acknowledge the outbursts.

"I am guilty, there's no trial. I am a warrior for the babies!" he shouted at King.

Looking at King, Dear shouted: "Do you know who this lawyer is? He's the lawyer for the Batman shooter that drugged him all up, and that's what they want to do to me."

As Chief District Court Judge Gilbert Martinez was issuing a gag order for law enforcement and attorneys, Dear accused defense attorneys of hiding the "truth."

"The babies that were supposed to be aborted that day, could you add them to that list?" Dear said.

Public defenders Kristen Nelson and Rosalie Roy leaned toward Dear during his outbursts. At one point, a sheriff's deputy had to place his hand on Dear's shoulder and calm him down.

"You'll never know what I saw in that clinic! The atrocities! That's what they want to seal! The babies!" Dear shouted.

More here.

Over at Hot Air, Allahpundit points to a YouGov poll which found that about half of all Americans consider Dear's attack as terrorism. Democrats are more likely to do so than Republicans by a nearly two-to-one margin. Same goes for whether pro-life groups "encourage violence" at abortion clinics. The good news? Regardless of partisan affiliation, only 4 percent of Americans think that violence against abortion providers is morally acceptable:

As Allahpundit himself might say: Exit question: Have there been any attacks on abortion clinics that were NOT motivated by anti-abortion ideology? That's apart from whether the shooter is certifiable (as Dear most certainly seems to be) and whether you think insanity is a legitimate defense (Dear was lucid enough to get off a hell of a zinger in the courtroom and he also openly accepted responsibility for his actions).  The presumption that violence at an abortion clinic is ideological seems pretty sound.

NEXT: Should the U.S. Government Build a Death Star?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He’s the lawyer for the Batman shooter that drugged him all up, and that’s what they want to do to me.

    Well Dear looked pretty drugged up the other day. Unfortunately shouting like this is not going to help ensure he’s actually present for his own trial.

    1. You can’t be tried if you’re not able to understand what is going on. That’s different from a M’Naughten plea aka Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. So they can hold him indefinitely in a mental facility until such time as he’s deemed competent to stand trial. /Semester-long course in that shit, many years ago

  2. And then there’s this asshole.

    1. You’ll need to be more specific, there’s a lot assholes here. You could say it’s assholes all the way down.

    2. Being taxed to keep this Dear abortion alive offends my faith in reason and justice.

  3. He’s not part of or sympathizes with a larger group waging a campaign of violence and criminal acts to inspire terror. Without the larger group, he’s just a mass murderer with a cause not a terrorist. At least that’s how I draw the line.

    1. Do you literally draw a line or is that just another illocution?

  4. He looks like Mark Hamill’s Trickster on The Flash.

  5. Unfortunately a couple Muslims ruined this for the news cycle.

    1. We’re the Muslims victims of a hate crime?

      1. Blowback for the war on women

  6. Question is whether he had these particular delusions before the shootings or whether he was just batshit crazy and the hoo-hah afterward planted that delusion into the fertile field of his mind.

    1. That’s kinda what I was wondering.

      Let’s not forget that not a single person in that clinic was injured. If he really was targeting PP, he did an incredibly bad job of it.

  7. The presumption that violence at an abortion clinic is ideological seems pretty sound.

    And the war with a certain segment of Islam is….

    1. … isolated?

      … statistically insignificant?

      … outclassed by the mayhem of a Stanley Cup upset?

      We’re spoiled for choice on how to finish that sentence. What a great meme.

  8. Aborto-Freak Christo-Terrorist.

    Why won’t conservatives say those words?

    1. because nut-job has less syllables.

      1. But then you’re opening the barn door to claims that people like the San Bernadino shooters were also nut-jobs. Sorry, Idle Hands, but there is a huge double standard here among both mainstream liberals and mainstream conservatives.

    2. I would assume they don’t say those words because, unlike you, they’re not retarded.

      1. I condemn both Christian and Islamic terrorism.

        1. Good for you. Have a cookie.

        2. And because you’re a Nate Silver-style, numbers-crunching kind of guy, I’m sure you can tell me how many Americans have been killed by “Aborto-Freak Christo-Terrorism” over the past 20 years, and how many have been killed by Islamic terrorism during the same period?

          1. I can only name about a dozen killings by US Christo-terrorists.

            Islam is by far the most offensive of the Abrahamic religions.

            Happy now?

            1. so there is a distinction AND a difference.

      2. I’m not seeing any evidence that he’s a “Christo-freak”, whatever that is (an outdoor art fan?).

        1. Oh, sorry, “Christo-terrorist”.

          WTF is it with the leftist hive-mind all of a sudden deciding that lone shooters are now “terrorists”? It makes no sense; clearly they’re trying to change the language yet again.

          1. Even if the “lone shooters” are terrorists nothing changes in the physical reality of the world around us. Self-defense and gun ownership are still rights, freedom of speech is still a right, and none of the proposed “common sense” gun law will have any impact. Even confiscation would have little to no impact. It’s all political.

          2. It’s a tantrum because they’re angry that we would dare to label people like Nidal Hasan, who they consider to be mentally ill, as terrorists. Also, the ongoing war against white males of european ancestry. Also, autonomous cells.

          3. Maybe they want to use the multi billion dollar National Security theater to go after lone gunman wackos. Of course, there’s usually no indication beforehand who might be a lone gunman wacko, so better add everyone to the terrorist watch list. After passing some “common sense” gun laws to make it illegal for anyone on the watch list to own a gun (it’s common sense, people, GAWD!!!!11!!!!).

  9. But, but, but… TEA Party! American Taliban! BOOOOOOSH!

  10. Have there been any attacks on abortion clinics that were NOT motivated by anti-abortion ideology?

    The Islamofascists just haven’t gotten around to it yet.

    1. What are the rulings about infidel abortions?

      1. Kill them both?

        1. I like the way you think, Sarc. Miss Stein, give Mr. Sarcasmic one of those paddles with the elastic and the rubber ball.

          1. Mine doesn’t work! How come I always get the broken one?

  11. Who do I blame for radicalizing him?

    1. Trump’s hair spoke to him through the tv.

    2. You’re supposed to blame Carly Fiorina or anyone that had anything to do with broadcasting that PP sold baby parts

  12. Have there been any attacks on abortion clinics that were NOT motivated by anti-abortion ideology?

    Are you telling me nobody anywhere had ever committed a crime at an abortion clinic not motivated by an anti-abortion ideology?

    1. You’re broadening the scope from ‘attacks’ to ‘crimes’.

      Just a-sayin’.

      1. It’s a stupid statement though. Has anybody ever carried out an “attack” on something without being “against” the place they were attaching?*

        No Reichstag jokes please.

        1. Marinus van der Lubbe?

    2. “attack on abortion clinic” != “crime at an abortion clinic”

      1. Ok. So has anybody anywhere ever “attacked” something and not been against it?

        1. Sure, plenty of attacks are because the attacker wants your stuff. Also, contract killings.

          1. Disgruntled workers.

            1. It could be argued that disgruntled employees are indeed against either their employer or their coworkers – that guy in VA who shot the TV reporter, for instance.

  13. I see Nick is still beating the Cruz quote horse. He’s either lying, fully knowing Cruz was making a point that we shouldn’t jump to conclusions, or he’s just too damn stupid to understand the point in the first place.

    1. Gillespie is fully committed to pants shitting fear mongering when it is one of his pet causes.

      1. That’s right, Nick loves criticizing others for things he does himself. He occasionally says good good things but really can’t be taken seriously because his credibility is essentially zero.

      2. IOW, he’s human.

    2. Fuck off, Tulpa.

      1. Not Tulpa. You like being lied to Tonio?

      2. That’s not Tulpa, retard.

  14. So what?

    The fact that this nut went off does not mean that the extreme pro-abortion rights regime that the courts have imposed on the country is above reproach, anymore than the rioting in Ferguson proved that policing methods and officers are above criticism.

    1. It actually conforms pretty well to Jewish Rabbinical Law on abortion. Not extreme.

      1. It is about the most permissive abortion law in the industrialized world, and one that the electorate is largely barred from altering.

        1. We also have the most permissive free speech protections and gun rights protections in the industrialized world. And I sure as fuck hope that the electorate is barred from altering those as well. And they aren’t what I’d call extreme either. But if those are extreme, a bit of extremism in protecting liberty and rights is not such a bad thing.

          Comparing our laws to the rest of the world is not a very good argument. Argue that abortion is not in fact a right if that’s what you think. But being extreme in protecting rights is a-OK. And if one does in fact have a right to control what goes on in one’s own body, it had damn well better not be alterable by the electorate and more than any other rights.

          1. And pro-lifers believe that they are defending human rights but according to people like Gillespie that be I g outspoken in that position is not right.

          2. Furthermore the basis of the US abortion is rather tortured interpretation of the Constitution that is mostly agreed to have been outside of the cort’s a i.e. of work even if the person agreed with the result.

            1. Sure, those are all debates to be had. I’m just saying that comparison to the rest of the world leads to bad places.

              I happen to think that a person has an absolute right to remove anything, including human beings, from their bodies should they choose to. And that things that are rights should not be subject to a vote. I accept that reasonable people can disagree on the former. But I do not want to be more like the rest of the industrialized world on the latter point.

              1. You have a situation here where you have two rights bearing entities whose rights are in conflict. The normal course of action is to vote on whose rights take precedence under what circumstances. This happens all the time. The circumstance when rights should not up to a vote is when there is no conflict.

                The animosity over this issue has been the court’s imperiousness in deciding this for the sovereign people.

        2. It is about the most permissive abortion law in the industrialized world,

          There is an individual solution.

          Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one.

          1. That is what the American Liberal Party recommended with regard to ALL religious laws in 1931. That and legalize beer!

  15. Was he an anti-abortion zealot or just another “transgendered leftist activist”?

    Bold move, doubling down on one’s own assholery–but the pledge drive is over, so its back to getting ready for that prime journolist spot.

  16. But think of all the Unborn Babies(tm) he saved!

  17. Look up “Thousands attend funeral of Garrett Swasey” and you’ll find that the cop Dear killed was also a pro-life minister.

    Also, Nicholas Thalasinos, one of the San Bernardino victims, supported a group which defends the dignity of babies conceived in rape – and their mothers, too.

    I’m sure the MSM covered it, I just missed it. /sarc

    1. a group which defends the dignity of babies conceived in rape

      Wow, Eddie, that is some Grade-AAA Bullshit right there. Let me translate that into normal people speak: They want to force women who were raped to go through pregnancy and childbirth to deliver the rapists child so they can feel all smug and self-righteous and holy.

      A while back you said how this was a wedge issue for causing the wishy-washy anti-abortion people to accept abortion on demand. That works both ways, Eddie, and not to your benefit. It exposes you people as the christo-aborto freak monsters you really are.

      1. You might be interested to learn that Juda Myers, founder of Choices4Life, was conceived in rape.

        I’m sure she’d be tickled pink to hear that you think she deserved to die.

        Her group provides help to women pregnant through rape or incest ‘ material help like food and lodging.

        But I’m sure your raving about able to freak monsters is helpful to these mothers, too.

        By the way, do you think rapists should be executed, or just their children?

        1. Observe the rationalizations these aborted brains go through to justify men with guns forcing women to reproduce. Maybe if the cops made a policy of blowing off these freaks’ genitalia? It worked for the Viet Cong when fanatical christianofascists invaded them.

    2. I have no objection to grown mystics killing each other.

  18. Reasonable (drink?) people can disagree on at what point life begins. Some people think it begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder, but how you go from that to “I’m gonna protest this type of murder, which is wrong, by… committing a bunch more murders” is baffling.

    But, to quote Bruce Banner from The Avengers, “That guy’s mind is like a bag of cats, you can smell the crazy on him.” Perhaps we shouldn’t try to ascribe any kind of rational motivation to the actions of someone who’s batshit crazy. Likewise, perhaps we should also be careful about linking the actions of batshit crazy people with an ideology that the vast majority of adherents never commit murder. Crazy people do crazy shit.

    1. Killing people who are engaged in the killing of others would not be an act of protest. It would be an act of defense of the defenseless.

      I don’t align with their ideology, motives or objective. But I don’t find it difficult to understand at all. In fact, it is somewhat surprising that there isn’t more violence related to this issue. If you truly believe that an unborn fetus is the equivalent of any person, how could you stand by and do nothing? Or merely stand by and hold a sign depicting an aborted fetus? If for some reason we were still OK with the ancient practice of “hobbling” infants that can’t be cared for or are unwanted, would I simply sigh and say “what a shame” as millions of small children were left to die of exposure?

      I think it is pretty informative as to the depth of belief of the “abortion is murder” crowd that only severely mentally ill people go off and kill abortion doctors. They say “murder”, but I think down deep they really mean “really bad and undesirable, but for some reason I don’t really see a fetus as a person no matter what I say.” Either that or social pressures to conform are much stronger than we’d like to think.

      1. Misdemeanor murder and the initiator goes free. Because she is a victim too. But the Dr? Well. You know they do it for money.

      2. Mysticism is all about believing crap that is the opposite of the facts of reality. That is why it kills people. Face it: superstition and the coercion it generates are anti-life.

    2. Google: “life begins at erection” or go to Youtube http://tinyurl.com/pnv5836

  19. John Dear was clearly provoked by the CIA installing the Shah in 1953. It’s the only reasonable explanation.

    1. He thought the place was a Deutz dealership.

    2. I’ve heard it enough times to testify that it is a popular recital.

  20. If you believe that abortion is murder (which I don’t) and that stopping it peacefully is impossible (which I do), stopping it by killing the people who perform it seems to be to be not only rational, but morally correct.

    Maybe the guy’s insane, but his reasoning — given the principles he’s reasoning *from* — seems sound.

    1. Next you will be telling me Islamist reasoning is sound. Well that would explain Richman.

      1. If your mission is to spread your ideology and universal conformity to your strictures is your ultimate and exclusive goal, then the use of violence can certainly be effective. It is hard to argue with that reasoning.

        It is telling that even an ideology like Christianity that was founded in opposition to oppression and expressly eschews violence has at times been overtaken by the impulse to use violence to gain adherents. What wonder is it that ideologies like communism so often embrace violence.

    2. Yes. Ethics requires a standard of value to guide choices. If your standard of value is death, then coercion, initiation of force–especially gunfights with cops–is definitely the way to go.

  21. “The presumption that violence at an abortion clinic is ideological seems pretty sound.”

    What?? It was no more ideological than his abuse of his wives or torturing animals or all the other nasty things he did in his life. He was just looking for a target and it found one. He was not motivated by ideology but by self-righteousness and a thirst for blood. He has a long history of cherry picking bible verses to justify his mischief. And yes it’s the same thing as ISIS. But make no mistake, if these people couldn’t find holy book justification for their crimes they would have written the manifesto themselves.

    1. So it’s just coincidence that the rejection of reason is followed by coercion and murder? Correlation has nothing at all to do with causality?

  22. Gosh. No kidding? So the murderer turned out to be another superstitious Pr?-State, birth forcer whack job on a Mission from God. Wow. What about that murdering Pakistani girl in California? Was she any different?

  23. Thanks… I’ve been searching for a week for a Reason article worth linking on Google+
    But for that lame poll… couldn’t you find any libertarians to ask whether the initiation of deadly force to deny individual rights to women is a good or bad thing? Were the undecided taken off of gravestones like Dem and GOP voters?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.